LARAMIDE RESOURCES LTD. TECHNICAL REPORT ON THE … · Technical Report NI 43-101 – November 16,...

November 16, 2018

RPA T55 University Ave. Suite 501 I Toronto, ON, Canada M5J 2H7 I + 1 (416) 947 0907 www.rpacan.com

LARAMIDE RESOURCES LTD.

TECHNICAL REPORT ON THECROWNPOINT URANIUM PROJECT,MCKINLEY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO, USA

NI 43-101 Report

Qualified Person:Mark B. Mathisen, C.P. .G

Report Control Form Document Title Technical Report on the Crownpoint Uranium Project,

McKinley County, New Mexico, USA

Client Name & Address

Laramide Resources Ltd. 130 King Street West, Suite 3680 Toronto, Ontario M5X 1B1, Canada

Document Reference Project #3042

Status & Issue No.

FINAL Version

Issue Date

Lead Author Mark B. Mathisen

(Signed)

Peer Reviewer William E. Roscoe

(Signed)

Project Manager Approval Mark B. Mathisen

(Signed)

Project Director Approval Deborah A. McCombe

(Signed)

Report Distribution Name No. of Copies Client RPA Filing 1 (project box)

Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.

55 University Avenue, Suite 501 Toronto, ON M5J 2H7

Canada Tel: +1 416 947 0907

Fax: +1 416 947 0395 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

www.rpacan.com

Laramide Resources Ltd. – Crownpoint Uranium Project, Project #3042

Technical Report NI 43-101 – November 16, 2018 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 1-1 Technical Summary ....................................................................................................... 1-4

2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 2-1

3 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS ................................................................................. 3-1

4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ................................................................ 4-1 Mineral Rights ................................................................................................................ 4-1 Royalties and Other Encumbrances ............................................................................... 4-3 Permitting ...................................................................................................................... 4-3

5 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 5-1

Accessibility ................................................................................................................... 5-1 Climate .......................................................................................................................... 5-1 Local Resources ............................................................................................................ 5-1 Infrastructure ................................................................................................................. 5-1 Physiography ................................................................................................................. 5-2

6 HISTORY ........................................................................................................................ 6-1 Prior Ownership ............................................................................................................. 6-1 Exploration and Development History ............................................................................ 6-3 Past Production ............................................................................................................. 6-4

7 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION .......................................................... 7-1 Regional Geology .......................................................................................................... 7-1 Local Geology ................................................................................................................ 7-1 Property Geology ........................................................................................................... 7-4 Structure ........................................................................................................................ 7-5 Mineralization ................................................................................................................ 7-5

8 DEPOSIT TYPES ............................................................................................................ 8-1

9 EXPLORATION ............................................................................................................... 9-1

10 DRILLING .................................................................................................................... 10-1

11 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY ............................................ 11-1 Historical Sampling Methods ........................................................................................ 11-1 Equivalent Uranium Grade Calculation ........................................................................ 11-3 Disequilibrium Analysis ................................................................................................ 11-3

12 DATA VERIFICATION ................................................................................................. 12-1 Audit of Drill Hole Database ......................................................................................... 12-1 Site Visit....................................................................................................................... 12-1 Independent Verification of Assay Table ...................................................................... 12-2

www.rpacan.com


Technical Report NI 43-101 – November 16, 2018 Page ii

13 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING ..................................... 13-1 Core Leach Study, Section 24 ..................................................................................... 13-1

14 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE ............................................................................. 14-1 Resource Database ..................................................................................................... 14-4 Geological Interpretation .............................................................................................. 14-4 Treatment of High Grade Assays ................................................................................. 14-7 Compositing ................................................................................................................. 14-8 Search Strategy and Grade Interpolation Parameters .................................................. 14-9 Bulk Density ............................................................................................................... 14-22 Cut-off Grade ............................................................................................................. 14-22 Classification ............................................................................................................. 14-23

15 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATE ................................................................................ 15-1

16 MINING METHODS ..................................................................................................... 16-1

17 RECOVERY METHODS .............................................................................................. 17-1

18 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................. 18-1

19 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS ...................................................................... 19-1

20 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT ......................................................................................................................................... 20-1

21 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS .......................................................................... 21-1

22 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS............................................................................................... 22-1

23 ADJACENT PROPERTIES .......................................................................................... 23-1

24 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND ................................................................................. 24-1

25 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................. 25-1

26 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................ 26-1

27 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 27-1

28 DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE .................................................................................. 28-1

29 CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON .................................................................... 29-1

LIST OF TABLES PAGE

Table 1-1 Summary of Mineral Resources by Sand Unit – October 24, 2018.................... 1-2 Table 1-2 Summary of Mineral Resources by Section – October 24, 2018 ....................... 1-2 Table 1-3 Proposed Budget .............................................................................................. 1-4 Table 10-1 Drill Hole Database ....................................................................................... 10-2 Table 14-1 Summary of Mineral Resources by Sand Unit – October 24, 2018................ 14-2 Table 14-2 Summary of Mineral Resources by Section – October 24, 2018 ................... 14-2 Table 14-3 Summary of Available Drill Hole Data ........................................................... 14-4 Table 14-4 Example of Tons Calculation E Sand – Section 24 ..................................... 14-20 Table 14-5 Example of Pounds Calculation E Sand – Section 24 ................................. 14-20

www.rpacan.com


Technical Report NI 43-101 – November 16, 2018 Page iii

Table 14-6 COG Comparisons by Company and Deposit ............................................. 14-23 Table 23-1 Summary of Mineral Resources at Crownpoint Controlled by EnCore, May 14, 2012 ................................................................................................................................. 23-1 Table 26-1 Proposed Budget .......................................................................................... 26-1

LIST OF FIGURES PAGE

Figure 4-1 Location Map ................................................................................................... 4-5 Figure 4-2 Land Tenure .................................................................................................... 4-6 Figure 6-1 Grants Uranium Mining District, San Juan Basin ............................................. 6-2 Figure 7-1 Local Geology.................................................................................................. 7-2 Figure 7-2 Typical Stratigraphic Section, Crownpoint Morrison Formation ........................ 7-3 Figure 8-1 Roll Front Characteristics ................................................................................ 8-2 Figure 8-2 Uranium Roll Front Conceptual Model and Examples ...................................... 8-3 Figure 10-1 Drill Hole Collar Locations............................................................................ 10-3 Figure 14-1 Laramide Resource Controlling Interest ....................................................... 14-3 Figure 14-2 Geologic Cross Section ............................................................................... 14-6 Figure 14-3 Histogram of U3O8 Resource Assays ........................................................... 14-7 Figure 14-4 Log Probability Plot Grouped by Section ...................................................... 14-8 Figure 14-5 Histogram of Composite Thickness ............................................................. 14-9 Figure 14-6 Section 9 A Sand GT / Thickness Contours ............................................... 14-10 Figure 14-7 Section 9 B Sand GT / Thickness Contours ............................................... 14-11 Figure 14-8 Section 9 C Sand GT / Thickness Contours ............................................... 14-12 Figure 14-9 Section 24 A Sand GT / Thickness Contours ............................................. 14-13 Figure 14-10 Section 24 B Sand GT / Thickness Contours ........................................... 14-14 Figure 14-11 Section 24 C Sand GT / Thickness Contours ........................................... 14-15 Figure 14-12 Section 24 D Sand GT / Thickness Contours ........................................... 14-16 Figure 14-13 Section 24 E Sand GT / Thickness Contours ........................................... 14-17 Figure 14-14 E Sand Pod Number Sequence S½ Section 24 ....................................... 14-19 Figure 14-15 C Sand Pod Number Sequence S½ Section 24 ....................................... 14-22

www.rpacan.com


Technical Report NI 43-101 – November 16, 2018 Page 1-1

1 SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. (RPA) has been retained by Laramide Resources Ltd.

(Laramide or the Company) to prepare an independent Technical Report on the Crownpoint

Uranium Project (the Project) located in McKinley County, New Mexico, USA. The purpose of

this report is to support the disclosure of an initial Mineral Resource estimate for the Project.

This Technical Report conforms to National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for

Mineral Projects (NI 43-101). RPA visited the Project on August 17, 2017.

The Project consists of portions of three sections of land, Section 9, Section 24, and Section

25, totalling approximately 615 acres. The history of exploration and mine development

activities for the Project dates back to the late 1960s. Mine development (surface facilities,

one production and two ventilation shafts) was carried out at the Section 24 property in the

early 1980s by a joint-venture between Conoco and Westinghouse. In 1980, adjacent to the

Section 9 property, Mobil Oil Corporation (Mobil) constructed and operated an in-situ recovery

(ISR) pilot test facility with positive results concerning recovery of uranium and loading of resin.

Exploration and development activities continued through the early 1990s by Uranium

Resources Inc. (URI) towards acquisition of necessary permits to carry out in-situ recovery

operations. The Project was acquired by Laramide in January 2017 from URI (now Westwater

Resources, Inc.).

Tables 1-1 and 1-2 summarize the Mineral Resource estimate for the Project prepared by

RPA, based on drill hole data available as of September 1, 2018. Due to the historical nature

of the data, the classification of Mineral Resources on the Project is limited to Inferred, until

new confirmation data can be obtained. Using a 0.5 ft-% eU3O8 grade-thickness product (GT)

cut-off, Inferred Mineral Resources with an effective date of October 24, 2018 total 4.2 million

tons at an average grade of 0.106% eU3O8 containing 8.9 million pounds U3O8 of which

Laramide controls 2.5 million tons at an average grade of 0.102% eU3O8 containing 5.1 million

pounds U3O8. No Mineral Reserves have been estimated for the Project.

The Mineral Resource estimate for the Project was prepared by RPA with the assistance of

Laramide’s technical team to conform to Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and

www.rpacan.com



Petroleum Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves dated May 10,

2014 (CIM (2014) definitions) as incorporated in NI 43-101. The Mineral Resource estimate

also satisfies the requirements of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results,

Minerals Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC Code Edition 2012) for Australian Securities

Exchange compliance.

TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF MINERAL RESOURCES BY SAND UNIT – OCTOBER 24, 2018

Laramide Resources Ltd. – Crownpoint Uranium Project

Total Resource Laramide Controlled Resource Classification Sand Unit Tonnage Grade Contained Metal Tonnage Grade Contained Metal % Controlled

(000 Tons) (% eU3O8) (000 lbs U3O8) (000 Tons) (% eU3O8) (000 lbs U3O8) Inferred Jmw A Sand 436 0.091 797 416 0.091 753 94.4% Jmw B Sand 907 0.099 1,802 655 0.099 1,300 72.1% Jmw C Sand 444 0.088 784 250 0.092 458 58.4% Jmw D Sand 179 0.114 408 115 0.108 249 61.0% Jmw E Sand 2,198 0.114 5,006 1,061 0.109 2,320 46.3% Total Inferred 4,163 0.106 8,798 2,497 0.102 5,079 57.7%

TABLE 1-2 SUMMARY OF MINERAL RESOURCES BY SECTION – OCTOBER 24, 2018


Total Resource Laramide Controlled Resource Classification Section Tonnage Grade Contained Metal Tonnage Grade Contained Metal % Controlled

T17N, R13W (000 Tons) (% eU3O8) (000 lbs U3O8) (000s Tons) (% eU3O8) (000s lbs U3O8) Inferred NW¼ Section 9 675 0.096 1,293 675 0.096 1,293 100.0% S½ Section 24 3,466 0.108 7,468 1,800 0.104 3,749 50.2% NE¼ Section 25 23 0.076 35 23 0.076 35 100.0% Total Inferred 4,163 0.106 8,798 2,497 0.102 5,079 57.7%

Notes for Tables 1-1 and 1-2:

1. CIM (2014) definitions were followed for Mineral Resources. 2. Mineral Resources are reported at a GT cut-off of 0.5 ft-% eU3O8. 3. A minimum thickness of 2.0 ft was used. 4. A minimum cut-off grade of 0.03% eU3O8 based on historic mining costs and parameters from the

district was used. 5. Internal maximum dilution of 5.0 ft was used. 6. Grade values have not been adjusted for disequilibrium. 7. Tonnage factor of 15 ft3/ton is based on the tonnage factor historically used by the mining operators in

the area. 8. Mineralized areas defined by isolated or widely spaced drill holes were excluded from the estimate. 9. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

RPA is not aware of any environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic,

marketing, political, or other relevant factors that could materially affect the Mineral Resource

estimate.

www.rpacan.com



CONCLUSIONS RPA offers the following conclusions regarding the Crownpoint Project:

• The Project is a significant uranium deposit of low to moderate grade.

• The uranium mineralization consists of a series of stacked roll front deposits.

• Drilling to date has intersected localized, low to moderate grade mineralized zones contained within five sandstone units of the of the Westwater Canyon Member of the Morrison Formation.

• The sampling, sample preparation, and sample analysis programs are appropriate for the style of mineralization.

• Although continuity of mineralization is variable, drilling to date confirms that local continuity exists within individual sandstone units.

• No significant discrepancies were identified with the survey location, lithology, and electric and gamma log interpretation data in historical holes.

• Descriptions of recent drilling programs, logging, and sampling procedures have been well documented by Laramide, with no significant discrepancies identified.

• There is a low risk of depletion of chemical uranium compared to radiometrically determined uranium in the Crownpoint mineralization.

• The resource database is valid and suitable for Mineral Resource estimation.

RECOMMENDATIONS Historical drilling at the Crownpoint Project has outlined the presence of significant uranium

mineralization, which warrants further investigation.

Table 1-3 shows Laramide’s proposed 2019 budget of US$470,000 for exploration drilling in

areas of potential mineralization (specifically SW¼ of Section 24). Washing out of several

historical holes and confirmatory geophysical logging are also planned for completion in 2019.

www.rpacan.com



TABLE 1-3 PROPOSED BUDGET Laramide Resources Ltd. – Church Rock Project

Item US$

Drilling: 12 exploration holes (approximately 2,000 ft deep) 360,000 Geophysical logging (12 holes) 30,000 Permitting activities (floral, faunal, access) 10,000 Geologic support for drilling/coring activities 25,000 Sub-total 425,000 Contingency 45,000 Total 470,000

RPA makes the following recommendations for future resource estimation updates and in

support of Laramide’s proposed 2019 budget:

GEOLOGY

• Although there is a low risk of depletion of chemical uranium compared to radiometrically determined uranium in the Crownpoint mineralization, additional sampling and analyses should be completed to supplement results of the limited disequilibrium testing to date.

• Additional confirmation drilling should be completed at the earliest opportunity to confirm historical drill hole data on all zones. RPA recommends that 10% of the holes be core holes in support of chemical assay for grade and equilibrium analysis.

MINERAL RESOURCES

• A suite of bulk density samples should be collected over the Project area, for each lithology type and grade range.

• Exploration should be planned for areas noted in the Technical Report where wide-spaced drilling previously identified potential mineralization. This drilling, in conjunction with the core studies, may lead to areas of the present Inferred Mineral Resource to be upgraded to Indicated Mineral Resources, and the potential discovery of additional mineral resources.

TECHNICAL SUMMARY

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION The eastern end of the Crownpoint Uranium Project is located one mile west of the town of

Crownpoint, in McKinley County, New Mexico. The Project is located in the Church Rock-

Crownpoint sub-district of the Grants Mineral Belt in northwestern New Mexico and comprises

www.rpacan.com



parts of Sections 9, 24, and 25 of Township 17 North, Range 13 West (T17N-R13W), New

Mexico 6th Principal Meridian.

LAND TENURE The Project consists of portions of three sections of land totalling approximately 615 acres.

The properties are accessible from the town of Crownpoint along West Route 9 which crosses

the Project, and locally via dirt roads. The mineral rights to the properties consist of a mix of

unpatented mining claims and private mineral rights. The surface estates are managed by the

US Bureau of Land Management (US BLM) or privately owned by Laramide. The properties

were acquired by Laramide in January 2017 from URI.

EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE At the Project, infrastructure is available for future exploration and mine development, with

paved road access to the Project and dirt road access locally. Power lines and natural gas

supplies which could be used for mining operations are located near and around the Project

area. In the Project vicinity, domestic water supplies are provided by the Navajo Tribal Utility

Authority through a pipeline distribution system. Water rights sufficient to operate a potential

ISR uranium mine are owned by Laramide. Several former surface facilities constructed on

Section 24 to service the Conoco underground mine are still present and well maintained.

HISTORY The history of exploration and resultant historical resource estimates are described below for

Sections 9 and 24 of the Project, since the original ownership varied. No drilling records or

resource estimates were noted for the Section 25, T17N-R13W claim group (Hydro 1-8).

Drilling on the property began in 1968 by Mobil and continued intermittently until early 1990s

by various contractors on various sections across the Project. The majority of drilling was

completed during the latter part of the 1970s.

The estimates presented in this section are considered to be historical in nature and should

not be relied upon. Key assumptions and estimation parameters used in these estimates are

not fully known to the authors of this report; it is therefore not possible to determine what

additional work is required to upgrade or verify the historic estimates as current Mineral

Resources. A qualified person has not completed sufficient work to classify the historical

www.rpacan.com



estimates as current Mineral Resources or Mineral Reserves and Laramide is not treating the

historical estimates as current Mineral Resources or Mineral Reserves.

The historical resource estimates reported below are superseded by the current Mineral

Resource estimates.

SECTION 9, T17N-R13W RESOURCE AREA Exploration Summary

Company # Drill Holes Total footage logged (ft) Mobil 78 170,575 URI 1 2,140

Historical Resource Estimate

Project Area Pounds U3O8 NW ¼ (CP claims 1-9, 100% interest) 2,800,000

Note: Estimated by URI (reported in Behre-Dolbear, 2007) using the GT contour method (cut-offs of 2 ft at 0.05% U3O8) SECTION 24, T17N-R13W RESOURCE AREA Exploration Summary

Company # Drill Holes Total footage logged (ft) Conoco 173 364,268 Mobil 44 92,618 Homestake 4 8,597 URI 5 10,449 Western Nuclear 1 2,103

Historical Resource Estimates

Project Area Pounds U3O8 SE ¼, (Consol claims 1-2, 100% interest) 800,0001

SE ¼ (Walker Lease, 40% interest shown) 4,712,0002

SW ¼ (CP claims 10-19, 100% interest) 5,288,0002

Notes:

1. Estimated in 1978 by Chapman, Wood and Griswold for Wyoming Minerals Corp. using the General Outline Method (cut-offs of 6 ft at 0.07% U3O8)

2. Estimated by URI (F. Lichnovsky, 11-6-1990) using the GT contour method (cut-offs of 2 ft at 0.05% U3O8)

GEOLOGY AND MINERALIZATION The Project is located in the Church Rock-Crownpoint sub-district of the greater Grants Mineral

Belt uranium district of northwestern New Mexico. The Grants Mineral Belt lies along the

www.rpacan.com



southern flank of the San Juan Basin located in the southeast corner of the Colorado Plateau.

The belt extends from just west of Church Rock eastward for approximately 100 miles to the

area of Laguna, and is approximately 25 miles to 30 miles wide north-south. The principal

host rocks for the uranium mineralization in the Crownpoint area are fluvial sandstones within

the Late Jurassic Morrison Formation, called the Westwater Canyon member. The Morrison

Formation was deposited in a continental setting by alluvial fans and braided streams that

partially filled the southern ancestral San Juan Basin. The strata gently dip northward from

one to three degrees with no known faulting on the Crownpoint Project.

The typical mineralized rock in the Crownpoint district, as well as the Ambrosia Lake and

Jackpile districts to the east, occurs as uranium-humate cemented sandstone. The uranium

mineralization consists largely of coffinite and sparse to minor amounts of unidentifiable

organic-uranium oxide complexes that are light grey-brown to black; the dark colour is

attributed to humic acids derived from buried organic materials.

Uranium mineralization is identified in five host sand units: Westwater sands Jmw A to E.

Mineralization is generally confined to the individual sand units except where intervening

shales/mudstones are absent and the sand units are merged. Regionally, gangue

mineralization includes varying amounts of vanadium, molybdenum, copper, selenium, and

arsenic. The mineralization coats and fills the intergranular spaces of the host sandstones.

The primary mineralization control is the presence of quartz-rich, arkosic, fluviatile sandstones

in the Morrison Formation. The uranium mineralization generally trends west-northwest to

east-southeast, following a similar trend of the primary sandstone host deposition. The

presence of carbonaceous matter as humate pods is important. Detrital plant fragments are

less common in the Crownpoint district than in the Ambrosia Lake district, however, they

contributed to the reduction of the uranium minerals and development of the extensive tabular

deposits that were subsequently “destroyed” and partially remobilized into roll-front features

during subsequent oxidation in the Middle to Late Tertiary.

EXPLORATION STATUS No exploration work or activities have been conducted by Laramide on the Crownpoint

property. Laramide is scheduled to begin exploration activities in 2019.

www.rpacan.com



RPA notes that typical roll-front mineralization does not usually present as pod type distribution

of mineralization as indicated in a number of isolated pods in the SW ¼ of Section 24. RPA is

of the opinion that there is a high probability that additional drilling in this area will confirm

mineralization continuity between these pods.

MINERAL RESOURCES The Crownpoint Mineral Resource estimate prepared by RPA is based on results of historical

drilling completed from 1968 to 1990. The effective date of the Mineral Resource estimate is

October 24, 2018. Due to the historical nature of the data, the classification of Mineral

Resources on the Project is limited to Inferred, until new confirmation drill hole data can be

obtained.

RPA prepared a geological model of the various sands over the Project area, and created

grade, thickness, and GT contours, manually using Vulcan software, over the mineralized

areas of each sand unit, using a cut-off grade of 0.03% eU3O8, a minimum thickness of two

feet, and allowing internal dilution up to five feet.

No capping of percent eU3O8 was performed prior to compositing across sand unit thickness.

Density was applied at 15 ft3/ton, consistent with past production and neighbouring deposits.

The areas between each GT and thickness contour intervals within the boundaries of the cut-

off grade contour (0.02% eU3O8) were measured using ArcGIS software in order to calculate

tons, pounds, and grade.

Mineralized lenses defined by isolated or widely spaced drill holes were excluded from the final

resource estimate.

RPA used 0.5 ft-% eU3O8 GT cut-off based on similar deposit types and operations and based

on discussions with Laramide.

The Mineral Resource estimate and classification are in accordance with the CIM (2014)

definitions. The Mineral Resource estimate also satisfies the requirements of the JORC Code.

There are no Mineral Reserves on the property at this time.

www.rpacan.com



2 INTRODUCTION Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. (RPA) has been retained by Laramide Resources Ltd.

(Laramide or the Company) to prepare an independent Technical Report on the Crownpoint

Uranium Project (the Project) located in McKinley County, New Mexico, USA. The purpose of

this report is to support the disclosure of an initial Mineral Resource estimate for the Project.

This Technical Report conforms to NI 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects.

Laramide is a Canadian company engaged in the exploration and development of uranium

assets based in Australia and the United States. The Company is co-listed on the Toronto

Stock Exchange (TSX) and the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) under the symbol

"LAM".

SOURCES OF INFORMATION This report was prepared by Mark B. Mathisen, C.P.G., RPA Principal Geologist with the

assistance of Ryan Rodney, M.Sc., C.P.G., RPA Geologist, William Roscoe, Ph.D., P.Eng.,

RPA Principal Geologist and Chairman Emeritus, and technical staff of Laramide. Mr.

Mathisen is a Qualified Person (QP) in accordance with NI 43-101.

Mr. Mathisen visited the Project on August 17, 2017 for this Technical Report. Mr. Mathisen

is responsible for all sections of this report and is independent of the Company for the purposes

of NI 43-101.

Discussions were held on several occasions with personnel of Laramide including:

• Bryn Jones, Chief Operating Officer

• J. Mersch Ward, Consulting Geologist

• Terrence Osier, Consulting Geologist

• Mark Pelizza, Consulting Permitting and Regulatory Specialist

No independent samples were taken by RPA as exploration drilling has yet to be carried out

on the Project by Laramide and historic core samples were not available. Relevant technical

reports and exploration drill data from Conoco, Mobil Oil Corporation (Mobil), Uranium

Resources Inc. (URI), and others were provided by Laramide to RPA and were reviewed and

www.rpacan.com



discussed with Laramide personnel during and following the site visit. The documentation

reviewed, and other sources of information, are listed at the end of this report in Section 27

References.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Units of measurement used in this report conform to the metric system. All currency in this

report is US dollars (US$) unless otherwise noted.

µ micron kVA kilovolt-amperes µg microgram kW kilowatt a annum kWh kilowatt-hour A ampere L litre bbl barrels lb pound Btu British thermal units L/s litres per second °C degree Celsius m metre C$ Canadian dollars M mega (million); molar cal calorie m2 square metre cfm cubic feet per minute m3 cubic metre cm centimetre MASL metres above sea level cm2 square centimetre m3/h cubic metres per hour d day mi mile dia diameter min minute dmt dry metric tonne µm micrometre dwt dead-weight ton mm millimetre °F degree Fahrenheit mph miles per hour ft foot MVA megavolt-amperes ft2 square foot MW megawatt ft3 cubic foot MWh megawatt-hour ft/s foot per second oz Troy ounce (31.1035g) g gram oz/st, opt ounce per short ton G giga (billion) ppb part per billion Gal Imperial gallon ppm part per million g/L gram per litre psia pound per square inch absolute Gpm Imperial gallons per minute psig pound per square inch gauge g/t gram per tonne RL relative elevation gr/ft3 grain per cubic foot s second gr/m3 grain per cubic metre st short ton ha hectare stpa short ton per year hp horsepower stpd short ton per day hr hour t metric tonne Hz hertz tpa metric tonne per year in. inch tpd metric tonne per day in2 square inch US$ United States dollar J joule USg United States gallon k kilo (thousand) USgpm US gallon per minute kcal kilocalorie V volt kg kilogram W watt km kilometre wmt wet metric tonne km2 square kilometre wt% weight percent km/h kilometre per hour yd3 cubic yard kPa kilopascal yr year

www.rpacan.com



3 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS This report has been prepared by RPA for Laramide. The information, conclusions, opinions,

and estimates contained herein are based on:

• Information available to RPA at the time of preparation of this report, • Assumptions, conditions, and qualifications as set forth in this report.

For the purpose of this report, RPA has relied on ownership information provided by Laramide.

RPA has not researched property title or mineral rights for the Crownpoint Project and

expresses no opinion as to the ownership status of the property.

Except for the purposes legislated under provincial securities laws, any use of this report by

any third party is at that party’s sole risk.

www.rpacan.com



4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION The eastern end of the Crownpoint Uranium Project is located one mile west of the town of

Crownpoint, in McKinley County, New Mexico (Figure 4-1). The Project is located in the

Church Rock-Crownpoint sub-district of the Grants Mineral Belt in northwestern New Mexico

and comprises parts of Sections 9, 24, and 25 of Township 17 North, Range 13 West (T17N-

R13W), New Mexico 6th Principal Meridian (Figure 4-2).

LAND TENURE The Project consists of portions of three sections of land totalling approximately 615 acres.

The Project is accessible from the town of Crownpoint along West Route 9 which crosses the

Project, and locally via dirt roads. The mineral rights to the properties consist of a mix of

unpatented mining claims and private mineral rights. The surface estates are managed by the

US Bureau of Land Management (US BLM) or privately owned by Laramide. The properties

were acquired by Laramide in January 2017 from URI.

All of the Crownpoint holdings are reported by Laramide to be in good standing. The annual

mining claim holding costs are US$155/claim. The total for the 2019 assessment year was

US$4,495 (29 claims), and has been paid by Laramide in August 2018 to the US BLM, plus

nominal county filing fees.

RPA is not aware of any environmental liabilities on the property. Laramide has all required

permits to conduct the proposed work on the property. RPA is not aware of any other

significant factors and risks that may affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform the

proposed work program on the property.

MINERAL RIGHTS The following details the surface and mineral estates of each section on the property. For this

discussion, the following definitions, summarized from www.mine-engineer.com, are used:

• Un-patented Mining Claim: An un-patented mining claim is a particular parcel of US

Federal land, valuable for a specific mineral deposit or deposits. It is a parcel for which an individual has asserted a right of possession. The right is restricted to the extraction and development of a mineral deposit. The rights granted by a mining claim are valid against

www.rpacan.com



a challenge by the United States and other claimants only after the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit. With an un-patented claim, the right to extract minerals is leased from the government. No land ownership is conveyed. There are two types of mining claims, lode and placer.

o Lode Claims: Deposits subject to lode claims include classic veins or lodes having well-defined boundaries. They also include other rock in-place bearing valuable minerals and may be broad zones of mineralized rock. Lode claims are usually described as parallelograms with the longer side lines parallel to the vein or lode. Descriptions are by metes and bounds surveys (giving length and direction of each boundary line). US Federal statute limits their size to a maximum of 1,500 ft in length along the vein or lodge. Their width is a maximum of 600 ft, 300 ft on either side of the centreline of the vein or lode. The end lines of the lode claim must be parallel to qualify for underground extralateral rights. Extralateral rights involve the rights to minerals that extend at depth beyond the vertical boundaries of the claim.

o Placer Claims: Mineral deposits subject to placer claims include all those deposits not subject to lode claims. Originally, these included only deposits of unconsolidated materials, such as sand and gravel, containing free gold or other minerals. By Congressional acts and judicial interpretations, many nonmetallic bedded or layered deposits, such as gypsum and high calcium limestone, are also considered placer deposits. Placer claims, where practicable, are located by legal subdivision of land (for example: E 1/2 NE 1/3 NE 1/4, Section 2, Township 10 South, Range 21 East, Mount Diablo Meridian). The maximum size of a placer claim is 20 acres per locator.

• Private Minerals: Mineral rights ownership refers to who owns the rights to extract

minerals – that is, oil, gas, gold, coal and other metals and minerals – from lands located in that country. This ownership is very important, since the rights confer considerable potential for profit from the extraction of these minerals. In virtually all countries around the world, the owner of the surface land has absolutely no rights with regard to mineral ownership. In the USA, however, the owner of the surface land can also have the rights to extract minerals from underneath that land. In other words, private individuals own much of the mineral rights across the USA, as opposed to governmental or state organizations.

SECTION 9, T17N-R13W The Section 9 property (~160 acres) consists of nine unpatented Lode Mining Claims. The

surface estate is managed by the US BLM. The mining claims are contiguous.

SECTION 24, T17N-R13W The Section 24 property (S½ = ~320 acres) consists of 12 unpatented mining claims (Consol

1, 2; CP 10-19) and a 40% interest in the remainder of the property held by private mineral

ownership. The surface estate of the SW¼ is managed by the US BLM and the SE¼ is

privately held by Laramide. The mining claims and private mineral rights are contiguous.

www.rpacan.com



SECTION 25, T17N-R13W The Section 25 property (~135 acres) consists of eight unpatented mining claims (Hydro 1-8).

The surface estate is managed by the US BLM. The mining claims are contiguous.

ROYALTIES AND OTHER ENCUMBRANCES A 5% royalty for the Project is owed to URI (now Westwater Resources Inc.). Laramide can

purchase the royalty in the future.

PERMITTING The Project is located on lands with varying regulatory management including the US BLM

and privately owned lands. A portion of the Project (Sections 24, 25) has had extensive

permitting activity leading to the issuance of several regulatory clearances for the extraction of

uranium by in-situ recovery (ISR) techniques.

In 1987, URI began field and permitting activities towards the development of an ISR uranium

operation at the Project, in conjunction with hydrogeologic analysis studies from the Church

Rock Project 20 miles to the west. The Church Rock Project is described in a previous NI 43-

101 Technical Report by RPA for Laramide, dated November 14, 2017 (RPA, 2017).

As part of the purchase of the Project from URI, Laramide obtained the following regulatory

clearances for portions of the Crownpoint and Church Rock Projects:

• Final Environmental Impact Statement (Docket No. 40-8968) prepared by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US NRC) in cooperation with the US BLM and the US Bureau of Indian Affairs (US BIA) dated February 1997.

• Radioactive Materials Licence from the US NRC, issued 1998, amended in 2006 and in “timely renewal”.

• Aquifer Exemption issued in the US Environmental Protection Agency, dated 1989.

• Water Rights transfer, approved by the office of New Mexico State Engineer, dated October 19, 1999.

Additional regulatory clearances are necessary for potential production and include:

• Discharge Permit/Underground Injection Control (UIC) Permit from the New Mexico Environmental Department.

www.rpacan.com



• Right-of-Way Permit from the US BIA or the Navajo Nation.

Prior to Laramide’s purchase of the Project, environmental activist groups and others filed

various legal actions, in state and federal courts, against issuance of the regulatory clearances.

During 2010, previous owner URI, in the name of subsidiary Hydro Resources Inc. (HRI),

pursued and won two significant court judgments with respect to the development of the

proposed ISR uranium mine at the Section 8 Church Rock Project which is part of the greater

Crownpoint Uranium Project. The first, an action challenging the UIC Permit, granted by the

State of New Mexico, was based on whether Section 8 was considered to be in “Indian

Country”. On September 13, 2010, the 10th Circuit Court’s en banc decision that Section 8

was not “Indian Country” was upheld. The second, an action challenging the US NRC licence,

was won on November 15, 2010 when the US Supreme Court denied a petition by interveners

to review the 10th Circuit Court’s decision upholding the US NRC licence.

Once the necessary additional regulatory clearances described above are completed, RPA is

not aware of any factors or risks that may affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform

the proposed work program on the Project.

Mexico

Luna

Hidalgo

Eddy

Dona Ana

Grant

Otero

Sierra

Lea

Chaves

Lincoln

SocorroCatron Roosevelt

Debaca

Curry

Valencia Torrance

Guadalupe

Bernalillo

Cibola

Quay

San Miguel

LosAlamos

Santa Fe

McKinley

Harding

Sandoval

Mora

Colfax

Taos

UnionSan JuanRio Arriba

Pecos R.

Pec

os R

.

Rio San Jose

Gila R.

Rio Grande

Rio Grande

Cimmaron R.

Corrizo Creek

Canadian R.

Pecos R.

Rio G

rande

Rio

Gra

nde

San Juan R.

Rio Puerco

Canadian R

.

Mora R.

Conchas L.

Elephant Butte Res.

Ascension

Sierra Blanca

Mentone

Mora

Tierra Amarilla

Conejos

Fabens

Canutillo

Mescalero

Seama

Black Rock

Santa Ana Pueblo

Cochiti

CrownpointSaint Michaels

Nambe

Mexican Springs

Alcalde

Sawmill

Naschitti

Sanostee

Shiprock

Teec Nos Pos

TowaocMontezuma Creek

BaldridgeSaragosaKent

Wild Horse

Eagle Flat

Hoban

Fort Hancock

Alamo Alto

Penwell

Cloverdale

Salt Flat

Cornudas

NotreesAngelesPine Springs

LanarkHachita

Black River Village

Afton

Teague

Portal

Vado

Animas

DesertDona

Florey

Wilna

Orogrande

Organ

San Simon

Florida

Lakewood

NuttSummit

White Signal

Valmont

MaljamarDunken

WeedArrey

Redrock

San Juan

Upham

Flying H

Fierro

McDonald

KingstonCaballo

Gila

Caprock

SunsetThree Rivers

Mule Creek

San Patricio

Crossroads

Crocker

Granville

Chloride

Lehman

Oscura

Monticello

Acme

Milnesand

Glenwood

Elkins

EnochsKenna

San Marcial

Coyote

BinghamSan Antonio

Tecolote

Alpine

Claunch

Progress

RamonPolvadera Gran Quivira

Datil

Ricardo KriderYeso

Pleasant Hill

Contreras

Joffre

Pie Town

McAlister

Bosque

Lucy

Bellview

Fence Lake

ChililiEscabosa

South Garcia

NewkirkClines Corners

EndeePalomas

ColoniasDahlia

Gruhlkey

Stanley

Sena

Conchas

Seboyeta

Corazon

Bluewater

Ilfeld

ObarBell Ranch

Santa Ana

San Mateo

Cerrillos

Sanders

Lamy

Sanchez

Continental Divide

Romero

Manuelito

San IgnacioWatrous

Pinedale

OptimoHayden

Bueyeros

MillsHolman

SedanYates

WareOjo Sarco

Ocate

Colmor

Gladstone

Abbott

Youngsville

Abiquiu

Pilar

Miami

Sofia

El Rito

Nageezi

Felt

Canjilon

Arroyo Hondo

Tsaile

El Vado

Tres PiedrasKoehler

Kenton

Red Rock

Jaroso

Lumberton Los Pinos

Segundo

Cedar HillLa Plata

Stonewall

Pagosa JunctionTiffany

Utleyville

Bondad

Villegreen

Redmesa

Ludlow

Model

Chimney Rock

CucharaEstrella

Hesperus

Vallecito

Sunland Park

Lovington

Socorro

Grants

Espanola

Trinidad

Cortez

Monahans

Kermit

Seminole

Truth or Consequences

Ruidoso

Belen

Los Lunas

Corrales

Bernalillo

Dalhart

Raton

Bloomfield

Aztec

Alamosa

Horizon City

Denver City

Muleshoe

Eagar

Bosque Farms

TucumcariLos Ranchos deAlbuquerque

Taos

Van Horn

Lordsburg

Clifton

Morton

Saint Johns

Santa Rosa

Clayton

Plains

Carrizozo

Farwell

Fort Sumner

Estancia

Springfield

Pagosa Springs

Mosquero

San Luis

Reserve

Jal

Anthony

Eunice

Tularosa

Friona

Questa

Wink

Loving

HatchHurley

Capitan

Sudan

BovinaMountainair

Moriarty

Pecos

Springer

Chama

ManassaBayfield

Mancos

TaosSki Valley

GrandfallsToyah

Barstow

Wickett

Dell CityColumbus

Hope

Lake ArthurCloudcroft

Duncan

DexterTatum

CauseyDora

Elida

Floyd

MagdalenaCorona

Melrose

HouseVaughn

Willard Encino

Grady

Tijeras

AdrianLogan

San Ysidro

Jemez Springs

RoyWagon MoundCuba

TexlineAngel Fire

Cimarron Maxwell

Grenville

Des Moines

BransonCampo

Kim

Ignacio

La Jara

AguilarBlanca

Socorro

Carlsbad

Hobbs

Alamogordo

Roswell

Clovis

Farmington

Pecos

AndrewsDeming

Artesia

Silver City

Portales

Las Vegas

Gallup

Durango

Los Alamos

Las Cruces

Rio Rancho

Albuquerque

El Paso

Santa Fe

Texas

New Mexico

Oklahoma

Arizona

ColoradoUtah

32°

33°

34°

35°

36°

37°

32°

33°

34°

35°

36°

37°

103°104°105°106°107°108°109°

CROWNPOINT PROJECT

State Capitals

Legend:

Cities

County Seat

International Boundaries

State Boundaries

County Boundaries

Interstate Highways

U.S. Highways

State Roads

0

0

50 Miles

50 Kilometres

25

25

10

10

N

November 2018

Crownpoint Project

Location Map

Laramide Resources Ltd.

McKinley County, New Mexico, U.S.A.

Figure 4-1

4-5

www.rpacan.com

0 2

Miles

1

Lode Mining Claims (100% Interest)

Legend:

Private Minerals (40% Interest)

N

November 2018 Source: T.A. Osier, 2018.

Land Tenure

Crownpoint Project



Figure 4-2

4-6

www.rpacan.com

www.rpacan.com



5 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY ACCESSIBILITY The eastern end of the Crownpoint Project is located one mile west of Crownpoint, New

Mexico, a town of approximately 2,300 people (2010 US census data). The Section 24 part of

the Project is easily accessed from Crownpoint on a paved road (West Route 9) and local

access to the other parts of the Project is available via dirt roads.

CLIMATE The climate is classified as arid to semi-arid continental, characterized by cool, dry winters,

and warm, dry summers. January temperatures in nearby Gallup range from 11°F to 45°F and

July temperatures range from 51°F to 89°F. Annual precipitation, mostly in the form of rain but

some snow, is approximately 12 inches (www.wikipedia.org). The local climate allows for year-

round mining and exploration drilling; however, winter snow and inclement weather conditions

may interrupt operations occasionally.

LOCAL RESOURCES The nearby city of Gallup (approximately 40 miles to the southwest) is the county seat of

McKinley County. Albuquerque, the state’s largest city of over 500,000 people, is located

approximately 120 miles south and east along US Interstate 40. These cities, and others

nearby, have the personnel and necessary supplies to staff and operate the proposed

Crownpoint ISR mine.

INFRASTRUCTURE At the Project, infrastructure is available for future exploration and mine development, with

paved road access to the Project and dirt road access locally. Power lines and natural gas

supplies which could be used for mining operations are located near and around the Project

http://www.wikipedia.org/

www.rpacan.com



area. In the Project vicinity, domestic water supplies are provided by the Navajo Tribal Utility

Authority through a pipeline distribution system. Water rights sufficient to operate the potential

ISR uranium mine are owned by Laramide. Several former surface facilities constructed on

Section 24 to service the Conoco underground mine are still present and well maintained.

PHYSIOGRAPHY The topography of the Project is typical of the high desert and plateau-valley physiography of

the greater Colorado Plateau, consisting of relatively flat-topped mesas or plateaus with

rugged cliff faces that merge with flat lying valley bottoms. Elevations range from 6,800 ft in

the valley bottoms to over 7,500 ft atop the plateaus. Vegetation is sparse and consists of

mostly sagebrush and native grasses in the valley bottoms and piñon and juniper trees on the

plateaus.

www.rpacan.com



6 HISTORY The Crownpoint uranium deposits are located in northwestern New Mexico and are part of the

Grants Uranium Region in the San Juan Basin. During a period of nearly three decades (1951-

1980), the Grants uranium district yielded more uranium than any other district in the United

States. The Grants district is a large area in the San Juan Basin, extending from east of

Laguna to west of Gallup, and includes eight sub-districts (Figure 6-1). Most of the uranium

production in New Mexico has come from the Grants district along the southern margin of the

San Juan Basin in McKinley and Cibola counties. The production was derived principally from

the Westwater Canyon Member of the Jurassic Morrison Formation.

In the Grants Mineral Belt, historic mining produced more than 340 million pounds of U3O8

from 1948 to 2002, predominantly from underground and open-pit operations. On Section 24,

mine development consisted of sinking production and ventilation shafts and construction of

surface facilities, however, no uranium ore was produced.

Although there are no current mining operations in the Grants district today, numerous

companies have acquired uranium properties and plan to explore and develop deposits in the

district in the future.

PRIOR OWNERSHIP The history of exploration and mine development activities for the Crownpoint Uranium Project

dates back to the late 1960s. Mine development (surface facilities, one production and two

ventilation shafts) was carried out on Section 24 in the early 1980s by a joint-venture between

Conoco and Westinghouse. In 1980, adjacent to the Section 9 property, Mobil constructed

and operated an ISR pilot test facility with positive results concerning recovery of uranium and

loading of resin. Exploration and development activities continued through the early 1990s by

URI towards acquisition of necessary permits to carry out ISR operations. The properties were

acquired by Laramide in January 2017 from URI (now Westwater Resources, Inc.).

www.rpacan.com

Laramide Resources Ltd. – Crownpoint Uranium Project, Project #3042 Technical Report NI 43-101 – November 16, 2018 Page 6-2

FIGURE 6-1 GRANTS URANIUM MINING DISTRICT, SAN JUAN BASIN

Source: Laramide Resources 2018 after McLemore and Chenoweth (1989)

www.rpacan.com



EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT HISTORY The history of exploration and resultant historical resource estimates are described below for

Sections 9 and 24 of the Project, since the original ownership varied. No drilling records or

resource estimates were noted for the Section 25, T17N-R13W claim group (Hydro 1-8).

The estimates presented in this section are considered to be historical in nature and should

not be relied upon. Key assumptions and estimation parameters used in these estimates are

not fully known to the authors of this report; it is therefore not possible to determine what

additional work is required to upgrade or verify the historic estimates as current Mineral

Resources. A qualified person has not completed enough work to classify the historical

estimates as current Mineral Resources or Mineral Reserves and Laramide is not treating the

historical estimates as current Mineral Resources or Mineral Reserves.

The historical resource estimates reported below are superseded by the current Mineral

Resource estimates presented in Section 14 of this report.


Company # Drill Holes Total footage logged (ft) Mobil 78 170,575 URI 1 2,140

Historical Resource Estimate

Project Area Pounds U3O8 NW ¼ (CP claims 1-9, 100% interest) 2,800,000

Note: Estimated by URI (reported in Behre-Dolbear, 2007) using the GT contour method (cut-offs of 2 ft at 0.05% U3O8)


Company # Drill Holes Total footage logged (ft) Conoco 173 364,268 Mobil 44 92,618 Homestake 4 8,597 URI 5 10,449 Western Nuclear 1 2,103

www.rpacan.com



Historical Resource Estimates

Project Area Pounds U3O8 SE ¼, (Consol claims 1-2, 100% interest) 800,0001

SE ¼ (Walker Lease, 40% interest shown) 4,712,0002

SW ¼ (CP claims 10-19, 100% interest) 5,288,0002

Notes:

1. Estimated in 1978 by Chapman, Wood and Griswold for Wyoming Minerals Corp. using the General Outline Method (cut-offs of 6 ft at 0.07% U3O8)

2. Estimated by URI (F. Lichnovsky, 11-6-1990) using the GT contour method (cut-offs of 2 ft at 0.05% U3O8)

PAST PRODUCTION There has been no past production on the property.

www.rpacan.com



7 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION REGIONAL GEOLOGY The Project is located in the Church Rock-Crownpoint sub-district of the greater Grants Mineral

Belt uranium district of northwestern New Mexico (Figure 6-1). The Grants Mineral Belt lies

along the southern flank of the San Juan Basin located in the southeast corner of the Colorado

Plateau. The belt extends from just west of the Church Rock area eastward for approximately

100 miles to the area of Laguna and is approximately 25 miles to 30 miles wide north-south,

including the area around Crownpoint. The principal host rocks for the uranium mineralization

in the Crownpoint area are fluvial sandstones within the Late Jurassic Morrison Formation,

called the Westwater Canyon member.

The Morrison Formation was deposited in a continental setting by alluvial fans and braided

streams that partially filled the southern ancestral San Juan Basin. These fluvial deposits were

derived from the Mogollan highlands immediately south and west from Laramide orogenic uplift

during the Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous. Subsequent uplift occurred prior to deposition

of the Dakota Sandstone resulting in portions of the Brushy Basin and underlying deposits

being partially eroded. The strata gently dip northward from one to three degrees with no

known faulting on the Crownpoint Project.

LOCAL GEOLOGY The exposed stratigraphy in the Crownpoint area includes marine and non-marine sediments

of Late Cretaceous age (Mesa Verde Group, Mancos Shale, Dakota Sandstone),

unconformably overlying the continental-fluvial sediments of the Jurassic Morrison Formation,

the principal host of uranium mineralization (Figures 7-1 and 7-2). The strata dip generally

from one to three degrees north towards the San Juan Basin.

9

24

25

0 1 4

Miles

2 3

N

November 2018

Source: Portion of Geologic Map of Gallup 30'x60' Quadrangle,McKinley County, New Mexico Map MI-2009 modified fromDillinger,1990.

Local Geology

Crownpoint Project



Figure 7-1

7-2

www.rpacan.com

November 2018 Source: Modified from Lanphere, 1979.

Typical Stratigraphic Section,Church Rock Morrison Formation/

Dakota Sandstone

Crownpoint Project


Figure 7-2

7-3

www.rpacan.com


www.rpacan.com



PROPERTY GEOLOGY

MESA VERDE GROUP (EARLY CRETACEOUS) At Crownpoint, the Mesa Verde Group consists of the Point Lookout Sandstone and Crevasse

Canyon and Gallup Formations. From the surface, in descending order, the Point Lookout

Sandstone consists of grey-brown to white, fine to medium grained sandstone; the Crevasse

Canyon consists of the Gibson Coal (interbedded sandstone, siltstone, shale, and coal beds),

Dalton Sandstone (light grey to tan, fine grained marine sandstone), Mulatto Tongue of the

Mancos Shale (light grey to dark grey shale, siltstone and mine marine sandstone), Stray

Sandstone (light grey to white, medium grained, well sorted sandstone), and the Dilco Coal

(interbedded light grey sandstone, siltstone, carbonaceous shale, and coal beds). Finally, the

Gallup Formation consists of light grey, fine grained, well-sorted sandstone. The Mesa Verde

Group at Crownpoint is approximately 1,100 ft thick.

MANCOS SHALE FORMATION (EARLY CRETACEOUS) The Mancos Shale consists of approximately 500 ft of marine, light grey to black shale with

interbedded fine-grained marine sandstone beds referred to as the Two Wells Member.

DAKOTA SANDSTONE FORMATION (EARLY CRETACEOUS) The Dakota Sandstone consists of a well-sorted fine-grained quartzose sandstone, deposited

in a mostly marine, shoreface environment. In the subsurface at the Project, the Dakota

Sandstone is approximately 160 ft thick. Although mineralized in the nearby Church Rock

district, the Dakota Sandstone is not mineralized at the Project.

MORRISON FORMATION (LATE JURASSIC) BRUSHY BASIN MEMBER In the Crownpoint area, the Brushy Basin Member is typically 150 ft thick, depending on the

level of erosion prior to deposition of the overlying Dakota Sandstone. The Brushy Basin

consists of mostly shales/mudstones of greenish-grey to red-brown colour with a sandstone

sub-member (Poison Canyon). Although mineralized in the nearby Church Rock district, the

Brushy Basin Member is not mineralized at the Project.

WESTWATER CANYON MEMBER In the Crownpoint area, the uranium mineralization is located within sandstones of the

Westwater (Jmw) Canyon Member. Eight sandstones, informally termed A to H in descending

www.rpacan.com



order, make up the Westwater Canyon Member, separated by thin shales and mudstones.

The sands are yellow-grey to pale red and the shales are typically greenish-grey. In the Project

area, the Westwater is approximately 300 ft to 340 ft thick, depending on the paleotopography

and the amount of subsequent erosion prior to deposition of the Dakota Sandstone. In the

Project area, only the upper five sandstone units (Jmw A to Jmw E sands) are mineralized.

STRUCTURE Regionally, the strata shallowly dip north, from one to three degrees, toward the San Juan

Basin. No known faults are projected to exist on the Crownpoint Project.

MINERALIZATION The typical mineralized rock in the Crownpoint district, as well as the Ambrosia Lake and

Jackpile districts to the east, occurs as uranium-humate cemented sandstone. The uranium

mineralization consists largely of coffinite and sparse to minor amounts of unidentifiable

organic-uranium oxide complexes that are light grey-brown to black; the dark colour is

attributed to humic acids derived from buried organic materials (Wentworth et al., 1980)

For this report, the uranium mineralization is defined by each host sand unit: Westwater sands

Jmw A to Jmw E. Mineralization is generally confined to the individual sand units except where

intervening shales/mudstones are absent, and the sand units are merged. Regionally, gangue

mineralization includes varying amounts of vanadium, molybdenum, copper, selenium, and

arsenic. The mineralization coats and fills the intergranular spaces of the host sandstones.

The primary mineralization control is the presence of quartz-rich, arkosic, fluviatile sandstones

of the Morrison Formation. The uranium mineralization generally trends west-northwest to

east-southeast, following a trend similar to that of the primary sandstone host deposition

(Smith, 1980; Wentworth et al., 1980). The presence of carbonaceous matter as humate pods

is important. Detrital plant fragments are less common in the Crownpoint district than in the

Ambrosia Lake district, however, they contributed to the reduction of the uranium minerals and

development of the extensive tabular deposits. The original uranium deposits were

subsequently “destroyed” and partially remobilized into roll-front features during subsequent

oxidation in the Middle to Late Tertiary (Saucier, 1980).

www.rpacan.com



8 DEPOSIT TYPES The mineralized deposits in the Crownpoint district are sandstone-type uranium deposits.

These types of deposits are irregular in shape, roughly tabular and elongated, and range from

pods a few feet in thickness, length and width, to extensive bodies of mineralization tens of

feet thick, several hundreds to thousands of feet long, and several tens to hundreds of feet

wide. The deposits are roughly parallel to the enclosing beds, but may cut across bedding

where interbedded shales/mudstones are absent, and the sand units merged.

Two types of uranium deposits occur in the Grants Mineral Belt: primary trend deposits and

post-faulting, or redistributed, secondary deposits. The primary trend mineralization, located

predominantly further east near Ambrosia Lake, was controlled by humic acids (humates)

which acted as the reductants to precipitate the uranium from groundwater. In the Crownpoint

area, the secondary deposits predominate, having formed from remobilization and destruction

of nearby, primary trend deposits. These secondary deposits at the Project are tabular in

shape, and many formed into “roll-fronts”, similar in shape to the Wyoming-type uranium roll

fronts that are mined by ISR methods in Wyoming, Nebraska, Texas, and other areas of the

world. Roll-front mineralization is distributed across a regional interface of oxidized and

reduced groundwater environments, known as the redox front (Figures 8-1 and 8-2).

www.rpacan.com



FIGURE 8-1 ROLL FRONT CHARACTERISTICS

www.rpacan.com



FIGURE 8-2 URANIUM ROLL FRONT CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND EXAMPLES

Source: after Devoto (1978)

www.rpacan.com



9 EXPLORATION Laramide has not conducted any exploration on the Project since acquiring the properties from

URI in January 2017. All exploration data used in this report were generated by former

property owners, mostly from the 1970s, with lesser exploration having occurred in the 1960s,

1980s, and 1990s. The data consist of exploration and development drilling, geophysical

logging, evaluation reports, core studies, resource estimates, and other information. All of

these data are secured in Laramide’s Lakewood, Colorado, office.

www.rpacan.com



10 DRILLING Mud-rotary drilling using bits from four to six inches in diameter was the principal method of

exploration and delineation of uranium mineralization on the Project. The holes were drilled

vertically, and, upon completion, each hole was logged with a geophysical tool for gamma-ray,

spontaneous potential (SP), and resistivity. Physical samples were retrieved at five-foot

intervals and were used for lithologic determinations and comparison to the SP and resistivity

curves from the geophysical logs. Additionally, cored samples were retrieved for metallurgical

studies, including mill leach amenability, ISR processes and post ISR groundwater restoration,

and assayed for disequilibrium determinations. Downhole drift surveys of the drill holes were

also conducted.

As of the effective date of this report, Laramide’s predecessors completed on and immediately

adjacent to the subject properties a total of 305 holes totaling 648,702 ft drilled from 1968 to

1990. Laramide has not carried out any drilling on the Project. A drilling summary up to and

including all drilling information available as of September 1, 2018 is presented in Table 10-1.

A map of drill hole collars and traces is shown in Figure 10-1.

www.rpacan.com



TABLE 10-1 DRILL HOLE DATABASE Laramide Resources Ltd. – Crownpoint Uranium Project

Section Year Company # Drill Holes Total Depth (ft)

8 1974 Mobil 1 2,249 1975 Mobil 3 6,510 1977 Mobil 4 8,541 1978 Mobil 19 41,462

8 Total 27 58,762 9 1973 Mobil 1 2,272 1977 Energy Resources 10 22,996 Mobil 21 45,175 1978 Mobil 1 2,120 1979 Mobil 6 13,039 1980 Mobil 11 24,111 1982 Mobil 1 2,199 1988 URI 1 2,140

9 Total 52 114,052 19 1973 Conoco 4 8,570

1974 Conoco 1 2,108 1975 Conoco 2 4,420 1976 Conoco 5 10,677 1979 Conoco 1 2,170

19 Total 13 27,945 24 1968 Homestake 1 2,100

1969 Homestake 1 2,120 1970 Homestake 2 4,377 1971 Western Nuclear 1 2,103 1972 Conoco 3 6,570 Mobil 3 6,702 1973 Conoco 35 73,824 Mobil 7 15,111 1974 Conoco 12 24,885 1975 Conoco 12 25,106 Mobil 4 8,290 1976 Conoco 88 183,917 1977 Mobil 3 6,366 1979 Conoco 1 2,200 Mobil 19 39,617 1980 Conoco 7 15,591 Mobil 6 12,373 1981 Conoco 1 2,060 Mobil 1 2,079 1982 Mobil 1 2,099 1988 URI 1 2,040 1990 4 8,413

24 Total 213 447,943 Grand Total 305 648,702

N

November 2018 Source: RPA, 2018.

Crownpoint Project

Drill Hole Collar Location


Figure 10-1

10-3

ww

w.rp

acan

.co

m

0 2

Miles

1


www.rpacan.com



11 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY HISTORICAL SAMPLING METHODS

RADIOMETRIC LOGGING Upon completion of drilling, each drill hole on the Project was logged with a suite of geophysical

tools including natural-gamma, spontaneous potential (SP), and resistivity. Use of a

radiometric probe to measure the natural gamma radiation allows for an indirect estimate of

uranium content to be made (eU3O8). The SP and resistivity curves assist with determination

and correlation of the sedimentary horizons, i.e., sandstone/shale boundaries, between drill

holes. Downhole natural gamma data from 305 historic drill holes with a total logged length of

648,702 ft was used for the Crownpoint Mineral Resource estimate.

The geophysical tools were maintained by specialized logging companies in the USA including

Century Geophysical Corp., Dalton Well Logging Services, Geosciences Associates,

Computer Logging Inc., and Western Wireline Corp.

GAMMA-RAY LOGGING Probing with a gamma logging unit employing a natural gamma probe was completed

systematically on every drill hole. The probe measures natural gamma radiation using one 0.5

in. by 1.5 in. sodium iodide (NaI) crystal assembly. Normally, accurate concentrations can be

measured in uranium grades ranging from less than 0.1% U3O8 to as high as 5% U3O8. Data

are logged at a speed of 15 ft to 20 ft per minute up hole, typically in open holes. Occasionally,

unstable holes are logged through the drill pipe and the grades are adjusted for the material

type and wall thickness of the pipe used.

The radiometric or gamma probe measures gamma radiation which is emitted during the

natural radioactive decay of uranium and variations in the natural radioactivity originating from

changes in concentrations of the trace element thorium as well as changes in concentration of

the major rock forming element potassium.

Potassium decays into two stable isotopes, argon and calcium, which are no longer

radioactive, and emits gamma rays with energies of 1.46 MeV. Uranium and thorium, however,

www.rpacan.com



decay into daughter products which are unstable, i.e., radioactive. The decay of uranium forms

a series of about a dozen radioactive elements in nature which finally decay to a stable isotope

of lead. The decay of thorium forms a similar series of radioelements. As each radioelement

in the series decays, it is accompanied by emissions of alpha or beta particles, or gamma rays.

The gamma rays have specific energies associated with the decaying radionuclide. The most

prominent of the gamma rays in the uranium series originate from decay of bismuth-214, and

in the thorium series from decay of thallium-208.

The natural gamma measurement is made when a detector emits a pulse of light when struck

by a gamma ray. This pulse of light is amplified by a photomultiplier tube, which outputs a

current pulse, accumulated and reported as counts per second (cps). The gamma probe is

lowered to the bottom of a drill hole and data are recorded as the tool travels to the bottom and

then is pulled back up to the surface. The current pulse is carried up a conductive cable and

processed by a logging system computer, which stores the raw gamma cps data.

The basis of the indirect uranium grade calculation referred to as "eU3O8" (for "equivalent

U3O8") is the sensitivity of the detector used in the probe, which is the ratio of cps to known

uranium grade and is referred to as the probe calibration factor. Each detector’s sensitivity is

measured when it is first manufactured and is also periodically checked throughout the

operating life of each probe against a known set of standard "test pits," with various known

grades of uranium mineralization or through empirical calculations. Application of the

calibration factor, along with other probe correction factors, allows for immediate grade

estimation in the field as each drill hole is logged.

Downhole total gamma data are subjected to a complex set of mathematical equations, taking

into account the specific parameters of the probe used, speed of logging, size of bore hole,

drilling fluids, and presence or absence of any type of drill hole casing. The result is an indirect

measurement of uranium content within the sphere of measurement of the gamma detector.

The conversion coefficients for conversion of probe cps to % eU3O8 grades are based on the

calibration results obtained at certified calibration facilities operated by the US AEC, now US

Department of Energy (DOE), in Grants, New Mexico, and Grand Junction, Colorado. Other

test pits exist in Casper, Wyoming and George West, Texas. Calibration results of appropriate

water factors, pipe-factors, K-factors, and dead times were typically noted on the gamma logs

or accompanying data sheets.

www.rpacan.com



EQUIVALENT URANIUM GRADE CALCULATION For all of the gamma logs available at the Project, the grade percentage intercepts were

reinterpreted. Each of the gamma log files contained data sheets noting gamma cps at 0.5 ft

intervals. The data was entered into Excel files and the gamma cps were then converted to

grade percent eU3O8 using the appropriate K-factors, water factors, and dead times for each

of the geophysical probes used. The cps for each gamma log was generated by the former

operators of the Project, typically using the Gamlog program or calculated directly from the

logging companies’ output gamma cps data sheets at 0.5 ft intervals.

Future exploration should include washing out of several of the older holes and re-probing

using modern gamma tools for additional confirmation of the older gamma log results.

In RPA’s opinion, the drilling, logging, sampling, and conversion and recovery factors at

Crownpoint meet or exceed industry standards at the time and are adequate for use in the

estimation of Mineral Resources.

DISEQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS Radioactive isotopes lose energy by emitting radiation and transition to different isotopes in a

decay series or decay chain until they reach a stable non-radioactive state. Decay chain

isotopes are referred to as daughters of the parent isotope. Uranium grade is determined

radiometrically by measuring the radioactivity levels of certain daughter products formed

during radioactive decay of uranium atoms. Most of the gamma radiation emitted by nuclides

in the uranium decay series is from daughter products in the series. When all the decay

products are maintained in close association with uranium-238 for the order of a million years,

the daughter isotopes will be in equilibrium with the parent. Disequilibrium occurs when one

or more decay products is dispersed as a result of differences in solubility between uranium

and its daughters, and/or escape of radon gas.

Knowledge of, and correction for, disequilibrium is important for deposits for which the grade

is measured by gamma-ray probes, which measure daughter products of uranium. Where

daughter products are in equilibrium with the parent uranium atoms, the gamma-ray logging

method will provide an accurate measure of the amount of parent uranium that is present. A

state of disequilibrium may exist where uranium has been remobilized and daughter products

www.rpacan.com



remain after the uranium has been depleted, or where uranium occurs and no daughter

products are present. Where disequilibrium exists, the amount of parent uranium present can

be either underestimated or overestimated. It is important to obtain representative samples of

the uranium mineralization to confirm the radiometric estimate by chemical methods.

Disequilibrium is determined by comparing uranium grades measured by chemical analyses

with the “gamma only” radiometric grade of the same samples measured in a laboratory. Core

is sampled over mineralized intervals as determined by a hand-held Geiger counter or

scintillometer to define mineralized boundaries. Core intervals are split and sampled. Each

sample is crushed and pulverized, and then two, separate assays are made of the same pulps;

a scaler-radiometric or closed can radiometric log and a chemical assay. The disequilibrium

factor is the ratio of the actual amount of uranium measured by chemical assay to the

calculated amount based on the gamma-ray activity of daughters. Disequilibrium is considered

positive when there is a higher proportion of uranium present compared to daughters. This is

the case where decay products have been transported elsewhere or uranium has been added

by, for example, secondary enrichment. Positive disequilibrium has a disequilibrium factor

which is greater than 1.0 and the calculated values are under estimating the quantity of

uranium. Disequilibrium is considered negative where daughters are accumulated and

uranium is depleted and the calculated values are overestimating the quantity of uranium. This

negative disequilibrium has a disequilibrium factor of less than 1.0 but greater than zero.

There are practical difficulties in comparing chemical analyses of uranium from drill hole

samples with corresponding values from borehole gamma logging, because of the difference

in sample size between drill core average grades in core or chip samples and radiometric

probe measurements of gamma response from spheres of influence up to three feet in

diameter. Probe calibration and/or assay errors may also be misinterpreted as disequilibrium.

If the gamma radiation emitted by the daughter products of uranium is in balance with the

actual uranium content of the measured interval assay, uranium grade can be calculated solely

from the gamma intensity measurement.

The degree of disequilibrium will vary with the mineralogy of the radioactive elements and their

surroundings which may create a reducing or oxidizing environment, climate, topography, and

surface hydrology.

www.rpacan.com



The sample volume will also affect the determination of disequilibrium, as a small core sample

is more likely to show extreme disequilibrium than a larger bulk sample. In some cases, the

parents and daughters may have moved apart over the length of a sample, but not over a

larger scale, such as the mineralized interval.

In addition to mill and ISR amenability studies, core was retrieved from across the Project area

to determine the potential for disequilibrium. Pertaining to the Crownpoint deposits, the

uranium-bearing host rocks are of Jurassic age, greater than 140 million years, and the

uranium mineralization is believed to be of similar to slightly younger age (Wentworth et al.,

1980), both of which are significantly older than the approximate one million years necessary

for daughter products to reach equilibrium with the initial uranium mineralization. However,

since the Crownpoint deposits are saturated in groundwater aquifers, the potential for

remobilization by oxygenated waters is possible.

The limited number of disequilibrium analysis reports provided by Laramide show that it is

realistic to assume that the deposit is in equilibrium or slightly in favour of chemical grade

(enriched), however, the data do not necessarily represent characteristics of the entire deposit.

Therefore, no adjustment for disequilibrium in the deposit was made for this resource estimate

(equilibrium factor = 1.0).

Although there is a low risk of depletion of chemical uranium compared to radiometric uranium

in the Crownpoint mineralization, RPA is of the opinion that there is the potential for areas of

negative and positive equilibrium across the mineralized fronts, and that future exploration

drilling and core retrieval target areas of oxidized and reduced mineralization. Laramide should

also utilize industry standard quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) for future exploration

drilling and sampling, e.g., notation of gamma tool calibrations, core assays with blanks and

third-party analyses, twinning or re-entry and re-logging of old holes, or specialized logging

tools such as Prompt-Fission-Neutron.

www.rpacan.com



12 DATA VERIFICATION AUDIT OF DRILL HOLE DATABASE RPA conducted a series of verification tests on the digitized database and files provided by

Laramide. The specific review tasks include:

• Inspected drill hole summaries, drill hole location maps, cross-sections, grade by

thickness (GT) contour, and other resource maps.

• Examined mine plan reports, survey documents, metallurgical and disequilibrium studies, and ISR amenability and hydrologic reports.

• Checked collar table: searched for incorrect or duplicate collar coordinates and duplicate hole IDs, property boundary limits, and a visual search for extreme survey values.

• Checked survey table: searched for duplicate entries, survey points past the specified maximum depth in the collar table, and abnormal dips and azimuths.

• Checked lithology table: searched for duplicate entries, intervals past the specified maximum depth in the collar table, overlapping intervals, negative lengths, missing collar data, missing intervals, and incorrect logging codes.

• Checked assay table: searched for duplicate entries, sample intervals past the specified maximum depth, negative lengths, overlapping intervals, sampling lengths exceeding tolerance levels, missing collar data, missing intervals, and duplicated sample IDs.

Independent verification of the historical laboratory results was not performed due to the

unavailability of the core samples.

SITE VISIT Mr. Mark Mathisen, CPG, visited the Project on August 17, 2017 accompanied by J. Mersch

Ward, consulting geologist to Laramide. Historical drill sites, monitor wells, access routes,

representative outcrops of the mineralized sand horizons located up-dip of the Project, and

former mining infrastructure at the Section 24 property were inspected.

www.rpacan.com



INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION OF ASSAY TABLE Verification of the gamma-logs and resulting grade % eU3O8 calculations were also completed.

RPA inspected at least twenty geophysical logs for Section 9 and Section 24 for accuracy of

the lithologic breaks, depths to sandstone/shales, and equivalent grade conversions. No major

discrepancies were found based on a review of the available data.

RPA is of the opinion that database verification procedures for the Crownpoint Uranium Project

comply with industry standards and are adequate for the purposes of Mineral Resource

estimation.

www.rpacan.com



13 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING Across the Project, core holes were drilled for mill amenability, compressive strength, density,

ISR amenability and processing, post-ISR restoration, and disequilibrium studies. The

following summarizes a core leach study at the Section 24 property conducted in 1990-1991

by URI, developed to determine the amenability of the Project deposits to ISR techniques

(Hazen Research Inc., 1991).

CORE LEACH STUDY, SECTION 24 As part of its 1990-1991 ISR-mine permitting work, URI conducted core drilling across the

Section 24 property. Drill core was studied to demonstrate the amenability of the mineralized

sandstone to ISR of uranium and to determine leach chemistry and expected recovery rates.

Testing was also completed to demonstrate that the groundwater could be restored to pre-

mining conditions.

Tests were conducted on one cored hole, DH-24-CP8 (4.71/99.45) recovered from the

mineralized Jmw-B sand. Core tests were performed by Hazen Research Inc. of Golden,

Colorado, in order to predict which ions and trace elements would be elevated during recovery

operations. Two column leach tests were performed on core from CP-8 by URI’s laboratory in

Kingsville, Texas: one at a rate simulating actual leach solution flow rates and the other at an

accelerated rate; and the analytical work was conducted by Jordan Laboratories of Corpus

Christi, Texas. Water utilized in the leach tests was recovered from aquifers containing

uranium mineralization.

At the conclusion of the leaching phase, a restoration test was undertaken. A simulated

reverse osmosis test was completed and showed that common ions, including HCO3, Cl and

Ca, as well as conductivity, were readily restored to baseline drinking water standards.

Results of the core and leach studies indicate that the Crownpoint deposits are amenable to

ISR techniques utilizing the local groundwater fortified with oxygen, sodium bicarbonate

(NaHCO3), and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) leach solutions.

www.rpacan.com



14 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE RPA has estimated Mineral Resources for the Project based on results of several historical

surface rotary drilling campaigns from 1968 to 1990. The Crownpoint Mineral Resource

estimate was completed utilizing the GT contour method, an industry standard for estimating

uranium roll-front type deposits hosted within groundwater-saturated sandstones. The

mineralization at the Project has been previously shown to be amenable to ISR techniques.

The Mineral Resource estimate for the Project was prepared to conform to Canadian Institute

of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Reserves

dated May 10, 2014 (CIM (2014) definitions) as incorporated by reference in NI 43-101 and

was completed by RPA with the assistance of Laramide’s technical team. The Mineral

Resource estimate also satisfies the requirements of the Australasian Code for Reporting of

Exploration Results, Minerals Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC Code 2012 Edition) for

Australian Securities Exchange compliance.

Tables 14-1 and 14-2 summarize the Mineral Resource estimate for the Project prepared by

RPA, based on drill hole data available as of September 1, 2018. Due to the historical nature

of the data, the classification of Mineral Resources on the Project is limited to Inferred, until

new confirmation data can be obtained. Laramide controls 100% of the mineral resource in

the NW ¼ of Section 9, SW ¼ of Section 24 and NE ¼ of Section 25, and a 40% controlling

interest across most of the SE ¼ of Section 24. Figure 14-1 shows a breakdown of Laramide’s

controlling interest across the Project. Using a 0.5 ft-% eU3O8 GT cut-off, Inferred Mineral

Resources with an effective date of October 24, 2018, total 4.2 million tons at an average

grade of 0.106% eU3O8 containing 8.9 million pounds U3O8 of which Laramide controls 2.5

million tons at an average grade of 0.102% eU3O8 containing 5.1 million pounds U3O8.

No Mineral Reserves have been estimated for the Project.

RPA is not aware of any environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic,

marketing, political, or other relevant factors that could materially affect the Mineral Resource

estimate.

www.rpacan.com



TABLE 14-1 SUMMARY OF MINERAL RESOURCES BY SAND UNIT – OCTOBER 24, 2018


Total Resource Laramide Controlled Resource Classification Sand Unit Tonnage Grade Contained Metal Tonnage Grade Contained Metal % Controlled

(000 Tons) (% eU3O8) (000 lbs U3O8) (000 Tons) (% eU3O8) (000 lbs U3O8) Inferred Jmw A Sand 436 0.091 797 416 0.091 753 94.4% Jmw B Sand 907 0.099 1,802 655 0.099 1,300 72.1% Jmw C Sand 444 0.088 784 250 0.092 458 58.4% Jmw D Sand 179 0.114 408 115 0.108 249 61.0% Jmw E Sand 2,198 0.114 5,006 1,061 0.109 2,320 46.3% Total Inferred 4,163 0.106 8,798 2,497 0.102 5,079 57.7%

TABLE 14-2 SUMMARY OF MINERAL RESOURCES BY SECTION – OCTOBER 24, 2018


Total Resource Laramide Controlled Resource Classification Section Tonnage Grade Contained Metal Tonnage Grade Contained Metal % Controlled

T17N, R13W (000 Tons) (% eU3O8) (000 lbs U3O8) (000s Tons) (% eU3O8) (000s lbs U3O8) Inferred NW¼ Section 9 675 0.096 1,293 675 0.096 1,293 100.0% S½ Section 24 3,466 0.108 7,468 1,800 0.104 3,749 50.2% NE¼ Section 25 23 0.076 35 23 0.076 35 100.0% Total Inferred 4,163 0.106 8,798 2,497 0.102 5,079 57.7%

Notes for Tables 14-1 and 14-2:

1. CIM (2014) definitions were followed for Mineral Resources. 2. Mineral Resources are reported at a GT cut-off of 0.5 ft-% eU3O8. 3. A minimum thickness of 2.0 ft was used. 4. A minimum cut-off grade of 0.03% eU3O8 based on historic mining costs and parameters from the

district was used. 5. Internal maximum dilution of 5.0 ft was used. 6. Grade values have not been adjusted for disequilibrium. 7. Tonnage factor of 15 ft3/ton is based on the tonnage factor historically used by the mining operators in

the area. 8. Mineralized areas defined by isolated or widely spaced drill holes were excluded from the estimate. 9. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

Laramide Resource 40% Control

Legend:

Drill Hole

Laramide Resource 100% Control

N



Crownpoint Project

Laramide ResourceControlling Interest

Figure 14-1

0 2

Miles

1McKinley County, New Mexico, U.S.A.

14-3

ww

w.rp

acan

.co

m

www.rpacan.com



RESOURCE DATABASE RPA was supplied with a drill hole database for the Project by Laramide in Microsoft Excel

format. The Crownpoint drill hole database dated September 1, 2018 was comprised of 305

holes totalling 648,702 ft logged completed from 1968 to 1990, and included drill hole collar

locations, including dip and azimuth, radiometric probe, and lithology data. For each individual

gamma log with mineralized sand zones, the grade % U3O8 data was accumulated at a

minimum thickness of 2 ft at ≥0.03% eU3O8. Drill holes immediately adjacent to the Section 9

and 24 properties were utilized to assist in extending the roll-front features to property

boundaries. Mineralization outside of Laramide’s Project boundary was not included in the

reported Mineral Resource estimates. A summary of the available data used in the modelling

of mineralization is presented in Table 14-3.

TABLE 14-3 SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE DRILL HOLE DATA Laramide Resources Ltd. – Crownpoint Uranium Project

Area # Holes Total Depth (ft) Average Depth (ft) # of Records

Survey Lithology Probe GT1 NW¼ Section 9 79 172,814 2,185 79 982 1,457 94 S½ Section 24 226 475,888 2,126 226 3,203 5,923 367 Grand Total 305 648,702 2,127 305 4,185 7,380 461 Note: 1: Total of grade x thickness (GT) 2 ft at ≥0.03%

GEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION Uranium mineralization at the Project is hosted within sandstone units of the Jurassic Morrison

Formation (Westwater Canyon Member: Jmw A to Jmw E sands) of western New Mexico.

Tabular primary uranium mineralization and secondary mineralization remobilized into

“Wyoming-type” roll-front deposits. The deposits are distributed across a regional interface of

oxidized and reduced environments, forming irregular and sinuous shaped deposits that

extend across the Project area. Depth to mineralization varies from 1,775 ft to 2,140 ft,

depending on which sand unit is mineralized, topography, and the gentle northerly dip of the

strata (1° to 3°).

RPA carried out a detailed correlation of the sand units in the 305 drill holes available for

the Crownpoint deposit using Leapfrog software. Correlation of the lithology logs was

accomplished using commonly accepted subsurface exploration methods with a primary

www.rpacan.com



emphasis on identifying sands and interbedded shales and assigning them “formation” marker

designations, as interpreted by Laramide geologists. RPA constructed a Project wide

stratigraphic model that was used to define which sand unit each mineralized zone belonged

to.

RPA recognizes that uranium mineralization at the Project occurs within and proximal to five

individual uranium bearing sand packages (Jmw A to Jmw E sands) across the Project that

show varying degrees of interbedded clay beds, and hematite alteration. The mineralization

consists predominantly of coffinite. There is evidence that mineralization within the individual

sand units occurs as a series of one to three stacked roll-fronts, with the Jmw B and Jmw E

sands at Section 24 hosting higher grade, thicker, and more continuous mineralization than

the others as defined by the drilling (Figure 14-2).

The stratigraphic interpretation was used to constrain the Mineral Resource estimate for each

sand unit. RPA was also provided with a map of the redox front for each sand unit, which was

used to interpret the trend of the mineralized deposits, in particular the thickest parts of the

roll-fronts.

Jmb

Legend:

Jmw A Sand

0 1 5

Miles

2 3 4



Crownpoint Project

Geologic Cross Section

Jmw B Sand

Jmw C Sand

Jmw D Sand

Kd

Lithology Unit

Jmw E Sand

Jmw F Sand

Jmw G Sand

Jmw H Sand

Figure 14-2


NAD 27, New Mexico West, State Plane

14-6

ww

w.rp

acan

.co

m

www.rpacan.com



TREATMENT OF HIGH GRADE ASSAYS

CAPPING LEVELS Where the assay distribution is skewed positively or approaches log-normal, erratic high-grade

assay values can have a disproportionate effect on the average grade of a deposit. One

method of treating these outliers in order to reduce their influence on the average grade is to

cut or cap them at a specific grade level. In the absence of production data to calibrate the

capping level, inspection of the assay distribution can be used to estimate a “first pass” cutting

level.

RPA uses a number of industry practice methods to assess the influence of high grade uranium

assays, and to determine if they will have undue influence on the resultant resource estimation.

All mineralization intercepts located inside the mineralized sand units were used together to

assess the risk and determine whether a cap of high grade values was needed to limit their

influence within each mineralized zone. Assay data were analyzed using a combination of

histogram, probability, percentile, and cutting curve plots (Figures 14-3 and 14-4). RPA is of

the opinion that high grade capping is not required at this time, however, capping should be

reviewed once additional data have been collected.

FIGURE 14-3 HISTOGRAM OF U3O8 RESOURCE ASSAYS

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

u_pct

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Freq

uenc

y (%

of 71

73) u

_pct

Cum

. Fre

quen

cy (%

of 71

73) u

_pct

mgm25 50 75

countmin

maxmeanstdev

skewnesskurtosisvariance

CVgeom mean

25%median

75%

u_pct71730.02020.80840.10320.09042.377.590.010.880.07850.04410.07050.1271

www.rpacan.com



FIGURE 14-4 LOG PROBABILITY PLOT GROUPED BY SECTION

COMPOSITING Composites were created from the uncapped, raw assay values. The minimum composite

length used during interpolation was chosen considering the predominant sampling length, the

minimum potential mining width, the style of mineralization, and the continuity of grade. Given

this distribution, deposit type, and considering the width of the mineralization, RPA utilized the

following parameters for composites:

• Minimum cut-off grade: 300 ppm (0.03% eU3O8)

• Minimum thickness: two feet

• Maximum interval waste thickness: five feet. This is the material between two mineralized layers which can be included (absorbed) in one composite, provided the composite grade is above the cut-off grade.

• Minimum GT value: 0.06 ft-%

Assays within the individual sand domains were composited starting at the first mineralized

sand boundary from the top of the sand unit and resetting at each new sand boundary.

0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5

u_pct

0.01

0.10.20.512

510

20304050607080

9095

9899

99.599.899.9

99.99

Cu

mu

lativ

e %

Grouped by section

mgm25 50 75

8

9

19

24

www.rpacan.com



Composites covered the whole mineralized interval in each sand unit and were not at a fixed

length (Figure 14-5). Each composite had an average grade, a thickness, and a GT value,

which were used to contour each sand unit in each of Sections 9 and 24, as further described

below.

For this estimate, RPA did not discriminate between shale and sand units in this process.

Future resource estimates will have to discriminate between those units which are potentially

amenable and not amenable to ISR extraction.

FIGURE 14-5 HISTOGRAM OF COMPOSITE THICKNESS

SEARCH STRATEGY AND GRADE INTERPOLATION PARAMETERS Mineral Resources of the Crownpoint deposit have been estimated by RPA using the GT

contour method (Agnerian and Roscoe, 2001). The GT method of resource estimation is a

technique best applied to estimate tonnage and average grade of relatively planar bodies, i.e.,

where the two dimensions of the mineralized body are much greater than the third dimension.

For each of the five individual sand units, drill hole intercept composite values of grade,

thickness, and GT were plotted in plan view and contoured (Figures 14-6 through 14-13).

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

thickness

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Freq

uenc

y (%

of 36

2)

u_pct >= 0.02mgm

countmin

maxmeanstdev

skewnesskurtosisvariance

CVgeom mean

thickness3622.00049.50010.7989.2111.652.8184.840.857.734

N NLegend:

0.1 - 0.3

Legend:

2.0 - 5.0

5.0 - 10

10 - 20

20 - 40

Thickness

40 - 60

> 60

0 300 1500

Feet

600 900 1200



Crownpoint Project

Section 9 A Sand GTThickness Contours

0.3 - 0.5

0.5 - 1.0

1.0 - 3.0

Sand GT

3.0 - 5.0

> 5.0

Figure 14-6


14-10

ww

w.rp

acan

.co

m

N NLegend:

0.1 - 0.3

Legend:

2.0 - 5.0

5.0 - 10

10 - 20

20 - 40

Thickness

40 - 60

> 60

0 300 1500

Feet

600 900 1200



Crownpoint Project

Section 9 B Sand GTThickness Contours

0.3 - 0.5

0.5 - 1.0

1.0 - 3.0

Sand GT

3.0 - 5.0

> 5.0

Figure 14-7


14-11

ww

w.rp

acan

.co

m

Legend:

0.1 - 0.3

N NLegend:

2.0 - 5.0

5.0 - 10

10 - 20

20 - 40

Thickness

40 - 60

> 60

0 300 1500

Feet

600 900 1200



Crownpoint Project

Section 9 C Sand GTThickness Contours

0.3 - 0.5

0.5 - 1.0

1.0 - 3.0

Sand GT

3.0 - 5.0

> 5.0

Figure 14-8


14-1

2

ww

w.rp

acan

.co

m

Legend:

0.1 - 0.3

N

N

Legend:

2.0 - 5.0

5.0 - 10

10 - 20

20 - 40

Thickness

40 - 60

> 60

0 300 1500

Feet

600 900 1200

0.3 - 0.5

0.5 - 1.0

1.0 - 3.0

Sand GT

3.0 - 5.0

> 5.0



Section 24 A Sand GTThickness Contours

Crownpoint ProjectMcKinley County, New Mexico, U.S.A.

Figure 14-9

Laramide 40% Control


14-13

www.rpacan.com

Legend:

0.1 - 0.3

N

N

Legend:

2.0 - 5.0

5.0 - 10

10 - 20

20 - 40

Thickness

40 - 60

> 60

0 300 1500

Feet

600 900 1200

0.3 - 0.5

0.5 - 1.0

1.0 - 3.0

Sand GT

3.0 - 5.0

> 5.0



Section 24 B Sand GTThickness Contours


Figure 14-10



14-14

www.rpacan.com

Legend:

0.1 - 0.3

N

N

Legend:

2.0 - 5.0

5.0 - 10

10 - 20

20 - 40

Thickness

40 - 60

> 60

0 300 1500

Feet

600 900 1200

0.3 - 0.5

0.5 - 1.0

1.0 - 3.0

Sand GT

3.0 - 5.0

> 5.0



Section 24 C Sand GTThickness Contours


Figure 14-11



14-15

www.rpacan.com

Legend:

0.1 - 0.3

N

N

Legend:

2.0 - 5.0

5.0 - 10

10 - 20

20 - 40

Thickness

40 - 60

> 60

0 300 1500

Feet

600 900 1200

0.3 - 0.5

0.5 - 1.0

1.0 - 3.0

Sand GT

3.0 - 5.0

> 5.0



Section 24 D Sand GTThickness Contours


Figure 14-12



14-16

www.rpacan.com

Legend:

0.1 - 0.3

N

N

Legend:

2.0 - 5.0

5.0 - 10

10 - 20

20 - 40

Thickness

40 - 60

> 60

0 300 1500

Feet

600 900 1200

0.3 - 0.5

0.5 - 1.0

1.0 - 3.0

Sand GT

3.0 - 5.0

> 5.0



Section 24 E Sand GTThickness Contours


Figure 14-13



14-17

www.rpacan.com

www.rpacan.com

Laramide Resources Ltd. – Crownpoint Uranium Project, Project #3042 Technical Report NI 43-101 – November 16, 2018 Page 14-18

Geometric (logarithmic) contour intervals of 0.03, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 1, and 3 were used for the GT

values because of the positively skewed statistical distribution of the grade and GT values.

Thickness was contoured in a linear progression at 5 ft, 10 ft, 15 ft, 20 ft, 25 ft, 30 ft, and 35 ft

intervals. Weighted average grade of each composite was contoured in geometric intervals

including the minimum cut-off grade value of 0.02% eU3O8. The 0.02% grade contour was

established as the outward limit for uranium mineralization to be considered as resource.

Contouring was completed by Laramide staff in part by hand and ArcGIS software and the

contours digitized. The contours were inspected and, where necessary, manually adjusted or

re-contoured by RPA to match geological and mineralized trends. The thickest and highest

GT values were generally associated with the redox front for each sand unit and RPA

contoured them along the trend of the redox front.

The areas between each GT and thickness contour intervals within the boundaries of the grade

contour of 0.02% eU3O8 were measured using ArcGIS software to calculate tons, contained

pounds, and grade for each sand unit and for each of Sections 9 and 24.

Areas for both GT and thickness contours were broken into individual “pods” and numbered

for final reconciliation of total resources. Figure 14-14 shows an example of this numbering

sequence for the E Sand in the S½ of Section 24.

www.rpacan.com



FIGURE 14-14 E SAND POD NUMBER SEQUENCE S½ SECTION 24

Tons were calculated from the contoured thickness data for each sand unit in each of Sections

9 and 24, inside of the 0.02% eU3O8 grade contour. The area in square feet for each contour

interval was multiplied by a thickness value representative of the contour interval to obtain a

volume in cubic feet for each contour interval. The volumes for each contour interval were

summed and divided by the density factor of 15 ft3/ton to obtain the total tonnage for each sand

unit in each section. Table 14-4 is an example calculation sheet for tonnage. The

representative thickness for each contour interval is the geometric mean of the interval limits

(Geo_Mean), which appears to better correspond to the average of all of the thickness values

within the contour interval than the mid-point.

www.rpacan.com



TABLE 14-4 EXAMPLE OF TONS CALCULATION E SAND – SECTION 24


Laramide % Controlled Sand Pod Section Thickness

(ft) Area (ft2)

Geo_Mean (ft) Total Tons Laramide Controlled

Tons 40 E E2 24 2 495,377 3.16 104,435 41,774 40 E E2 24 5 525,518 7.07 247,732 99,093 40 E E2 24 10 748,387 14.14 705,586 282,234 40 E E2 24 20 496,163 28.28 935,574 374,230 40 E E2 24 40 78,404 44.33 231,727 92,691

100 E E1 24 2 11,966 3.16 2,523 2,523 100 E E1 24 5 1,270 7.07 599 599 100 E E2 24 2 413,094 3.16 87,088 87,088 100 E E2 24 5 354,989 7.07 167,343 167,343 100 E E2 24 10 255,663 14.14 241,041 241,041 100 E E2 24 20 14,620 28.28 27,568 27,568 100 E E2 24 40 361 44.33 1,067 1,067

Contained pounds of U3O8 were calculated from the contoured GT data for each sand unit in

each of Sections 9 and 24, inside of the 0.02% eU3O8 grade contour. The area for each

contour interval was multiplied by a GT value representative of the contour interval. The values

for each contour interval were summed and divided by the density factor of 15 ft3/ton to obtain

the total contained pounds for each sand unit in each section. Table 14-5 is an example

calculation sheet for pounds. The representative GT value for each contour interval is the

geometric mean of the interval limits, which appears to better correspond to the average of all

of the GT values and fits with the lognormal-like statistical distribution of GT and grade.

TABLE 14-5 EXAMPLE OF POUNDS CALCULATION

E SAND – SECTION 24 Laramide Resources Ltd. – Crownpoint Uranium Project

Laramide % Controlled Sand Pod Section GT Area

(ft2) Geo_Mean

(GT) Total

(lbs U3O8) Laramide Controlled

(lbs U3O8) 40 E E2 24 0.1 475,357 0.17 109,779 43,912 40 E E2 24 0.3 330,691 0.39 170,768 68,307 40 E E2 24 0.5 413,250 0.71 389,616 155,846 40 E E2 24 1 708,806 1.73 1,636,917 654,767 40 E E2 24 3 283,671 3.87 1,464,871 585,948 40 E E2 24 5 132,402 5.82 1,028,175 411,270

100 E E1 24 0.1 9,525 0.17 2,200 2,200 100 E E1 24 0.3 3,759 0.39 1,941 1,941 100 E E2 24 0.1 368,737 0.17 85,156 85,156 100 E E2 24 0.3 229,761 0.39 118,648 118,648

www.rpacan.com



Laramide % Controlled Sand Pod Section GT Area

(ft2) Geo_Mean

(GT) Total

(lbs U3O8) Laramide Controlled

(lbs U3O8) 100 E E2 24 0.5 332,305 0.71 313,300 313,300 100 E E2 24 1 106,780 1.73 246,598 246,598 100 E E2 24 3 1,188 3.87 6,135 6,135 100 E E2 24 5 519 5.82 4,030 4,030 100 E E2 25 0.1 8,701 0.17 2,009 2,009 100 E E2 25 0.3 44,652 0.39 23,058 23,058 100 E E2 25 0.5 12,613 0.71 11,892 11,892

ALLOWANCE FOR WIDE SPACED DRILLING Mineralized lenses defined by isolated or widely spaced drill holes were not included in the

final resource estimate, such as pods C6 though C11 (Figure 14-15).

RPA notes that typical roll-front mineralization does not usually present as pod type distribution

of mineralization as indicated in the C6 to C11 pods in the SW ¼ of Section 24 (Figure 14-15).

RPA is of the opinion that there is a high probability that additional drilling in this area will

confirm mineralization continuity between these pods.

www.rpacan.com



FIGURE 14-15 C SAND POD NUMBER SEQUENCE S½ SECTION 24

BULK DENSITY Historic bulk density records were reviewed for core samples across the Project; the densities

varied from 14 ft3/ton to 17 ft3/ton. RPA assumed a tonnage factor of 15 ft3/ton, which was the

typical tonnage factor used by the prior operators including Conoco and Mobil at Crownpoint

for mineralized intervals in the Westwater Canyon Member sandstone units.

RPA considers the density factor of 15 ft3/ton to be reliable and reasonable for the resource

estimation.

CUT-OFF GRADE RPA chose to use a 0.5 ft-% GT cut-off based on similar deposit types and ISR operations in

the USA and Australia (Table 14-6).

www.rpacan.com



TABLE 14-6 COG COMPARISONS BY COMPANY AND DEPOSIT Laramide Resources Ltd. – Crownpoint Uranium Project

Company Year Project Type Report Method Grade % GT

EnCore (Tigris) 2012 Crownpoint, NM NI 43-101 GT Contour 0.02 0.1 Comment: HRI's estimates from 2004: $11.46/lb direct; $13.46/lb direct + G&A Alliance 2013 Four Mile, Aust JORC Table 1 seam model, w/ triangulation 0.05 0.1 Comment: %-m GT or 2 ft cut-off based on operating experience UEC* 2014 Burke Hollow, TX NI 43-101 GT Contour 0.02 0.3 Comment: Relative to current ISR operations Peninsula 2014 Lance, WY JORC Table 1 polygonal block model 0.02 0.2 Comment: Assumes ISR techniques will be used (currently in operation) Azarga 2015 Dewey-Burdock, SD PEA NI 43-101 GT Contour 0.05 0.5 Comment: 0.5 (indicated), 0.2 (inferred) cut-offs are typical of ISR industry and current ISR operations EFR* (Uranerz) 2015 Nichols Ranch, WY PEA NI 43-101 GT Contour 0.02 0.2 Comment: Similar operations, based on depths and operating conditions at the project UR Energy 2016 Lost Ck, WY PEA NI 43-101 GT Contour 0.02 0.2 Comment: Based on operating experience, other demonstrated operations UEC (AUC)* 2016 Reno Ck, WY PEA NI 43-101 2-D Delaunay triangulation

0.2

Comment: Consistent with those commonly used at other ISR project in the area Boss 2016 Jason, Australia JORC Table 1 block model 0.025

Comment: Comparable with industry standards. Conservative vs. Kazakh cut-offs of 0.01% EFR* 2016 Alta Mesa, TX NI 43-101 GT Contour 0.02 0.3 Comment: Used at similar operations LARAMIDE 2017 Church Rock, NM NI 43-101 GT Contour 0.02 0.5 LARAMIDE 2018 Crownpoint, NM NI 43-101 GT Contour 0.03 0.5 Comment: Cut-off of 0.03% @ 2-ft easily conservative relative to all others (only Azarga and Alliance used higher

grade cut-offs). Note *: UEC – Uranium Energy Corp., AUC – AUC LLC, EFR – Energy Fuels Inc.

CLASSIFICATION Definitions for resource categories used in this report are consistent with those defined by CIM

(2014) and incorporated by reference in NI 43-101. In the CIM classification, a Mineral

Resource is defined as “a concentration or occurrence of solid material of economic interest

in or on the Earth’s crust in such form, grade or quality and quantity that there are reasonable

prospects for eventual economic extraction”. Mineral Resources are classified into Measured,

Indicated, and Inferred categories. A Mineral Reserve is defined as the “economically

mineable part of a Measured and/or Indicated Mineral Resource” demonstrated by studies at

www.rpacan.com



Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility level as appropriate. Mineral Reserves are classified into Proven

and Probable categories.

The Mineral Resources have been classified on the basis of confidence in the drill hole assay

database, geological and grade continuity using the drilling density, geological model, and

modelled grade continuity. The Mineral Resource is classified as Inferred based on the historic

nature of the data and drilling density along trends of the modelled deposits.

www.rpacan.com



15 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATE There are no current Mineral Reserves estimated for the Project.

www.rpacan.com



16 MINING METHODS This section is not applicable.

www.rpacan.com



17 RECOVERY METHODS This section is not applicable.

www.rpacan.com



18 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE This section is not applicable.

www.rpacan.com



19 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS This section is not applicable.

www.rpacan.com



20 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT This section is not applicable.

www.rpacan.com



21 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS This section is not applicable.

www.rpacan.com



22 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS This section is not applicable.

www.rpacan.com



23 ADJACENT PROPERTIES EnCore Energy Corp. (EnCore) holds a 60% interest in part of the southeast quarter of

Township 17 North, Range 13 West in which Laramide holds a 40% interest. Encore also

holds a 100% interest in mineral rights in Sections 19 and 29 of Township 17 North, Range 12

West.

In 2012, EnCore (formerly Tigris Resource Corp.) filed a NI 43-101 Technical Report on Mineral

Resources of its Crownpoint and Hosta Butte Uranium Projects (Beahm, 2012). Table 23-1

summarizes Mineral Resources on Encore’s Crownpoint Project which comprises Sections 19,

29, and the portion of the southeast quarter of Section 24 in which it holds a 60% interest, as

reported in Beahm (2012). RPA cautions that the information in Table 23-1, which shows total

resource and EnCore controlled resource, has not been verified by the author and is not

necessarily indicative of the mineralization on the Laramide property that is the subject of this

Technical Report.

TABLE 23-1 SUMMARY OF MINERAL RESOURCES AT CROWNPOINT CONTROLLED BY ENCORE, MAY 14, 2012


Total Resource1 EnCore Controlled2 Classification Tonnage Grade Contained Metal Tonnage Grade Contained Metal

(000 Tons) (% eU3O8) (000 lbs U3O8) (000 Tons) (% eU3O8) (000 lbs U3O8) Indicated 9,477 0.102 19,205 7,876 0.102 16,071 Inferred 743 0.105 1,562 712 0.105 1,508 Total Indicated + Inferred 10,220 0.102 20,767 8,588 0.102 17,579

Notes:

1. GT cut-off: Minimum Grade (% eU3O8) x Thickness (Feet) for Grade > 0.02 % eU3O8. 2. This tabulation shows the total Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource and the portion thereof

controlled by EnCore, i.e., 100% of Sections 19 and 29, and 60% of Section 24 Pounds and tons as reported are rounded to the nearest 1,000

www.rpacan.com



24 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND No additional information or explanation is necessary to make this Technical Report

understandable and not misleading.

www.rpacan.com



25 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS RPA offers the following conclusions regarding the Crownpoint Project:

• The Project is a significant uranium deposit of low to moderate grade.

• The uranium mineralization consists of a series of stacked roll front deposits.

• Drilling to date has intersected localized, low to moderate grade mineralized zones contained within five sandstone units of the of the Westwater Canyon Member of the Morrison Formation.

• The sampling, sample preparation, and sample analysis programs are appropriate for the style of mineralization.

• Although continuity of mineralization is variable, drilling to date confirms that local continuity exists within individual sandstone units.

• No significant discrepancies were identified with the survey location, lithology, and electric and gamma log interpretation data in historical holes.

• Descriptions of recent drilling programs, logging, and sampling procedures have been well documented by Laramide, with no significant discrepancies identified.

• There is a low risk of depletion of chemical uranium compared to radiometrically determined uranium in the Crownpoint mineralization.

• The resource database is valid and suitable for Mineral Resource estimation.

www.rpacan.com



26 RECOMMENDATIONS Historical drilling at the Crownpoint Project has outlined the presence of significant uranium

mineralization, which warrants further investigation.

Table 26-1 shows Laramide’s proposed 2019 budget of $470,000 for exploration drilling in

areas of potential mineralization (specifically SW¼ of Section 24). Washing out of several

historical holes and confirmatory geophysical logging are also planned for completion in 2019.

TABLE 26-1 PROPOSED BUDGET

Laramide Resources Ltd. – Church Rock Project

Item US$ Drilling: 12 exploration holes (approximately 2,000 ft deep) 360,000 Geophysical logging (12 holes) 30,000 Permitting activities (floral, faunal, access) 10,000 Geologic support for drilling/coring activities 25,000 Sub-total 425,000 Contingency 45,000 Total 470,000

RPA makes the following recommendations for future resource estimation updates and in

support of Laramide’s proposed 2019 budget:

GEOLOGY

• Although there is a low risk of depletion of chemical uranium compared to radiometrically determined uranium in the Crownpoint mineralization, additional sampling and analyses should be completed to supplement results of the limited disequilibrium testing to date.

• Additional confirmation drilling should be completed at the earliest opportunity to confirm historical drill hole data on all zones. RPA recommends that 10% of the holes be core holes in support of chemical assay for grade and equilibrium analysis

MINERAL RESOURCES

• A suite of bulk density samples should be collected over the Project area, for each lithology type and grade range.

• Exploration should be planned for areas noted in the Technical Report where wide-spaced drilling previously identified potential mineralization. This drilling, in conjunction with the core studies, may lead to areas of the present Inferred Mineral Resource to be

www.rpacan.com



upgraded to Indicated Mineral Resources, and the potential discovery of additional mineral resources.

www.rpacan.com



27 REFERENCES PUBLISHED REFERENCES Alliance Resource Ltd., Four Mile Mineral Resource Estimate Compliance with JORC Code

(2012) Table 1 (November 23, 2013) Beahm, D. L., 2012, Crownpoint and Hosta Butte Uranium Project, McKinley County, New

Mexico, USA, Mineral Resource Technical Report, NI 43-101 prepared by BRS Engineering for Tigris Uranium Corp. (May 14, 2012)

Beahm, D.L., Goranson, P., 2015, Nichols Ranch Uranium Project 43-101 Technical Report

Preliminary Economic Assessment, prepared for Uranerz Energy Corporation by BRS Engineering and Uranerz Energy Corporation (February 28, 2015)

Beahm, D.L., 2016, Alta Mesa Uranium Project, Alta Mesa and Mesteña Grande Mineral

Resources and Exploration Target, Technical Report National Instrument 43-101, prepared for EFR Alta Mesa LLC (a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Energy Fuels Inc.) by BRS Engineering (July 19, 2016)

Boss Resources Limited, ASX Announcement Maiden Resource of 5.2MLB for Jason’s

Deposit at Honeymoon Uranium Project with JORC Code (2012) Table 1 (June 14, 2016) Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy, and Petroleum (CIM), 2014, CIM Definition of

Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, adopted by CIM on May 10, 2014 Clark, D.S., 1980, Uranium Ore Rolls in Westwater Canyon Sandstone, San Juan Basin, New

Mexico, in Geology and Mineral Technology of the Grants Uranium Region 1979: C.A. Rautman, editor; New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Memoir 38, pp. 195-207.

Dillinger, J.K., 1990, Geologic and Structure Contour Maps of the Gallup 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle,

McKinley County, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2009, scale 1:100,000, 2 plates.

Fitch, D.C., 2005, Technical Report on the Strathmore Church Rock Uranium Property,

McKinley County, New Mexico, prepared for Strathmore Minerals Corp, 59 p. (December 20, 2005)

Galloway, W.E., 1980, Deposition and Early Hydrologic Evolution of Westwater Canyon Wet

Alluvial-Fan System, in Geology and Mineral Technology of the Grants Uranium Region 1979: C.A. Rautman, editor; New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Memoir 38, pp. 59-69.

Gibbs, B.L., Maxwell, R.D., 2016, Technical Report and Audit of Resources of the Reno Creek

ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, USA, prepared for AUC LLC by Behre Dolbear & Company (July 31, 2016)

www.rpacan.com



Graves, D.H., Cutler, S., 2015 NI 43-101 Technical Report Preliminary Economic Assessment Dewey-Burdock Uranium ISR Project South Dakota, prepared for USA Azarga Uranium Corp. by TREC, Inc. and Rough Stock Mining Services (January 29, 2015)

Graves, D.H., Bonner, J.A., 2016, Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Lost Creek

Property Sweetwater County, Wyoming, prepared for Ur-Energy Inc. by TREC, Inc. and Ur-Energy Inc. (January 19, 2016)

Kurrus III, A.W., Yancey, C.L., 2014, Updated Technical Report, Burke Hollow Uranium

Project, Bee County, Texas, USA, NI 43-101 Technical Report UEC prepared by Uranium Energy Corp. (December 29, 2014)

McLemore, V. T., and Chenoweth, W.L., 1989, Uranium resources in New Mexico: New

Mexico Bureau of Mines and Minerals Resources, Resource Map 18, 36 p. McLemore, V. T., and Chenoweth, W.L., 2016, In situ recovery of sandstone-hosted uranium

deposits in New Mexico: past, present, and future issues and potential, New Mexico Geology, November 2016, Volume 38, Number 4.

Peninsula Energy Limited, Company Announcement for Lance Projects with JORC Code

(2012) Table 1 (March 27, 2014) RPA, 2017, Technical Report on the Church Rock Uranium Project, McKinley County, State of

New Mexico, U.S.A., prepared for Laramide Resources Ltd. by Mathisen, M. B. (November 14, 2017)

Saucier, A.E., 1980, Tertiary Oxidation in Westwater Canyon Member of Morrison Formation,

in Geology and Mineral Technology of the Grants Uranium Region 1979: C.A. Rautman, editor; New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Memoir 38, pp. 116-121.

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1987, Final Environmental Impact Statement Docket No.

40-8968, Hydro Resources, Inc.) to Construct and Operate the Crownpoint Uranium Solution Mining Project, Crownpoint, New Mexico: NUREG-1508, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission in cooperation with the US Bureau of Indian Affairs and US Bureau of Land Management.

Wentworth, D.W., Porter, D.A., and Jensen, H.N., 1980, Geology of the Crownpoint Sec. 29

Uranium Deposit, McKinley County, in Geology and Mineral Technology of the Grants Uranium Region 1979: C.A. Rautman, editor; New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Memoir 38, pp. 139-144.

www.rpacan.com



UNPUBLISHED REFERENCES Behre-Dolbear, December 2007, URI Internal Memo: Technical Report on the Crownpoint

Project for URI, Inc., 30p. Chapman, Wood, and Griswold, April 1979: Estimates for Conoco’s Crownpoint Uranium Ore

Reserves, Portions of Secs. 19 and 29, T17N-R12W, and Portion of Sec. 24, T17N-R13W, McKinley County, New Mexico, for Wyoming Mineral Corporation (Westinghouse), 71p.

HRI, Inc., 1991, URI Internal Memo: Crownpoint Core Analysis and Column Leach Study, 17p. Lichnovsky, F., November 6, 1990, URI Internal Memo: Crownpoint Reserves, SE/4 Section

24, Resource Estimates GT Contour Method: 12p. Smith, D.A., November 1980, Geologic Investigation of the Crownpoint Uranium District,

McKinley County, New Mexico (UNC-Teton Exploration Drilling, Inc.), 131p.

www.rpacan.com



28 DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE This report titled “Technical Report on the Crownpoint Uranium Project, McKinley County, New

Mexico, USA” and dated November 16, 2018 was prepared and signed by the following author:

(Signed and Sealed) “Mark B. Mathisen” Dated at Lakewood, CO November 16, 2018 Mark B. Mathisen, C.P.G. Principal Geologist

www.rpacan.com



29 CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON MARK B. MATHISEN I, Mark B. Mathisen, C.P.G., as the author of this report entitled “Technical Report on the Crownpoint Uranium Project, McKinley County, New Mexico, USA” prepared for Laramide Resources Ltd. and dated November 16, 2018, do hereby certify that: 1. I am Principal Geologist with RPA (USA) Ltd. of Suite 505, 143 Union Boulevard,

Lakewood, Co., USA 80228. 2. I am a graduate of Colorado School of Mines in 1984 with a B.Sc. degree in Geophysical

Engineering. 3. I am a Registered Professional Geologist in the State of Wyoming (No. PG-2821) and a

Certified Professional Geologist with the American Institute of Professional Geologists (No. CPG-11648). I have worked as a geologist for a total of 22 years since my graduation. My relevant experience for the purpose of the Technical Report is: • Mineral Resource estimation and preparation of NI 43-101 Technical Reports. • Director, Project Resources, with Denison Mines Corp., responsible for resource

evaluation and reporting for uranium projects in the USA, Canada, Africa, and Mongolia.

• Project Geologist with Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., responsible for planning and direction of field activities and project development for an in situ leach uranium project in the USA. Cost analysis software development.

• Design and direction of geophysical programs for US and international base metal and gold exploration joint venture programs.

4. I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-

101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI 43-101.

5. I visited the Crownpoint Uranium Project on August 17, 2017. 6. I am responsible for all sections of the Technical Report. 7. I am independent of the Issuer applying the test set out in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101. 8. I have had no prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report. 9. I have read NI 43-101, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with NI

43-101 and Form 43-101F1.

www.rpacan.com



10. At the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the Technical Report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.

Dated this 16th day of November, 2018 (Signed and Sealed) “Mark B. Mathisen” Mark B. Mathisen, C.P.G.

LARAMIDE RESOURCES LTD. TECHNICAL REPORT ON THE … · Technical Report NI 43-101 – November 16,...

Documents

Transcript of LARAMIDE RESOURCES LTD. TECHNICAL REPORT ON THE … · Technical Report NI 43-101 – November 16,...